LI  BR  AR  Y 

OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA. 

GIRT    OR 


Received 
Accessions 


Shelf  Wo... 


JEWISH 


AND 


CHRISTIAN  ETHICS 

\7TTH  A. 

CBITICISM  ON  MAHOMEPISM 

BY; 

E.   BEXAMOZEGH. 


THE  FRENCH., 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 

PUBLISHED    BY    EMANUEL    BLOCHMAJ?. 
5633  —  1873. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 


And  ye  (Israel)  are  my  witnesses.    Is  there  a  God  besides  me? 
Yea,  there  is  no  Rock,  I  know  none. — Isaiah,  xliv.  8. 

THE  most  effective  method  oi  counteracting  an  old  and 
•wide-spread  error,  is  to  show  how  and  why  it  arose.  Al- 
though a  logical  refutation,  a  priori,  or  an  historical  one 
from  cause  and  effect,  a  posteriori,  would  have  more  weight 
with  the  thinker  or  lover  of  abstract  ideas, -yet,  for  the 
majority  at  least,  no  method  seems  better  than  the  first. 
Both  the  latter  indeed  are  admirably  used  in  the  fine  essay 
here  presented  to  the  reader,  and  the  author  ostensibly 
rests  his  case  upon  their  provings  ;  yet  the  whole  tenor  of 
his  discourse  undesignedly  evolves  the  first  in  a  remark- 
able degree.  The  reason  of  the  origin  of  Christianity 
clearly  comes  out,  and  the  splendor  of  those  ethereal  doc- 
trines that  it  claims  as  its  own,  are  traced  in  detail  and 
with  unerring  accuracy  to  their  true  source — the  then  set- 
ting sun  of  Judaism.  Even  the  real  peculiarities  of  the 
new  system,  such  as  Justification  by  Faith,  Freedom  from 
the  Law,  &c.,  are  ably  shown  to  be  misapplications  of  old 
Rabbinical  doctrines  or  traditions. 

We  have  had,  within  the  past  half  century,  many  works 
exposing  the  delusions  from  which  Christianity  sprung; 
none  of  these,  however,  occupies  exclusively  that  portion 
of  the  field  of  inquiry  explored  by  this  essay,  chiefly,  we 
suppose,  because  the  writers  lacked  that  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  literature,  of  the  Talmud,  and  the  still  more  recon- 
dite Cabalistic  works  with  which  Jews  alone  are  con- 
versant. As  this  essay  was  written  by  one  well  versed  in 
Hebrew  lore,  all  the  necessary  arguments  are  brought 
to  bear, — necessary  we  say;  for  as  a  comparison  is  here 
made  between  an  original  creed  (Judaism)  and  its  two 


IV  PREFACE* 

main  derivative  branches  (Christianity  and  Mohammedan- 
ism), it  is  obvious  it  could  not  have  been  instituted  with- 
out a  full  acquaintance  with  the  former. 

In  the  second  chapter  are  given  an  analysis  of  the  ex- 
traordinary doctrines  taught  by  Paul,  of  the  Hebrew  doc- 
trines from  which  he  manufactured  his  seductive  fictions, 
and  the  consequences,  obvious  as  well  as  inevitable,  which 
they  at  once  and  for  centuries  produced.  This  portion  of 
the  book  is  highly  curious  and  interesting.  We  would 
also  call  special  attention  to  the  ninth  chapter,  where  the 
universal  -\-  and  cosmopolitan  character  of  Judaism  is  vin- 
dicated. 

The  main  argument  of  the  book  is  that  Judaism  has  a 
two-fold  character — a  material  and  a  spiritual  side ;  the 
first,  dealing  with  man's  worldly  interests  and  his  various 
relations  to  the  present  world ;  the  second,  with  the  con- 
science of  the  individual,  with  things  most  real  indsed, 
but  unseen  or  to  come  :  and  that  this  system — true  to 
nature,  true  to  the  necessities  of  man's  constitution  and 
of  his  present  state — has  been  "bisected"  and  therefore 
wholly  marred  by  the  two  offshoots  herein  criticised. 
Christianity,  it  is  shown,  has  taken  the  spiritual  side  of 
Judaism,  and  insisting  upon  this  alone  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other  (so  indispensable  in  man's  present  state),  has 
made  itself  thereby  ridiculously  impracticable,  and  cre- 
ated not  only  the  wildest  fanaticism  but — whenever  it  has 
had  full  play,  unchecked  by  reason  or  common  sense — the 
most  revolting  licentiousness.  Mohammedanism,  on  the 
other  hand,  ignoring  Judaism's  etherial  side,  has  adopted 
as  its  sole  canon  the  secular  part  of  the  Mosaic  Code- 
given  solely  for  the  preservation  of  the  state  and  of  soci- 
ety ;  hence  the  materialism,  the  torpor  of  tho  spiritual  and 
purifying  element  in  man's  nature,  and  -the  social  and  po- 
litical semi-barbarism  so  observable  in  Islamism.  Still,  a 
system  springing  from  the  latter  selection,  must  obviously 
be  preferable  in  theory  and  practice;  in  theory,  as  it 
strictly  preserved  the  Monotheism  of  its  mother-creed, 
and  never  gave  to  a  creature  the  incommunicable  attributes 


PREFACE. 

of  the  First  Cause ;  and  in  practice,  as  it  would  not  be 
liable  to  fall  into  the  extravagances  of  its  "  solely-spiritual' 
sister-creed.  All  this  is  shown  with  great  ability  by  the 
author. 

So  far,  in  this  exclusive  adoption  of  a  special  side  of 
Judaism,  can  we  draw  a  parallel  between  the  two  sys- 
tems :  but  then  (unfortunately  for  Christianity)  they 
remarkably  diverge ;  for  while  Islamism,  as  shown  in 
the  second  part,  transcribes  exactly,  even  in  their 
minutiae,  its  dogmas  and  precepts  from  Judaism,  Chris- 
tianity— as  embodied  in  the  Papacy,  its  most  legitimate 
offspring — has  taken  nearly  all  its  ceremonials,  and  most 
of  its  practical  ordinances,  as  monasticism,  celibacy,  au- 
ricular confession,  pictures,  beads,  canonization  of  saints, 
etc.,  and  some  of  its  dogmas  even,  as  the  Lamb,  the 
Trinity,  the  Immaculate  Conception,  etc.,  from  Indian 
creeds,  especially  from  Buddhism.  Catholicism  is,  in- 
deed, so  close  a  copy  of  the  latter,  that  a  disciple  of 
Budda  could  not  without  difficulty  distinguish  one  from 
the  other.  Protestantism  has  been  a  revolt  from  this 
amalgamation;  but  rejecting  tradition,  that  served  as  a 
check  in  some  degree  upon  the  fanaticism  so  native  to  the 
soil  of  Christianity,  and  encountering  in  the  written  rec- 
ords the  conflicting  and  irreconcilable  doctrines  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles,  it  was  naturally  rent,  like  the  primitive 
Church,  into  a  thousand  pieces. 

Incidentally,  this  work  establishes  beyond  a  doubt  two 
main  facts  as  to  the  founder  of  Christianity:  the  first, 
that  he  was  in  its  truest  sense,  a  fanatic,  i.  e.  a  one-sided 
philosopher ;  the  second,  that  he  was  a  false  prophet  (un- 
consciously perhaps)  by  asserting  that  the  end  of  the  world 
was  at  Jiand  (Luke  xxi,  32 :) ;  to  which  last  we  must  chiefly 
ascribe  (as  the  essay  shows)  the  recklessness  and  vice 
of  the  primitive  Churches. 

The  prevailing  tone  of  the  work  is  critical  and  logical; 
philosophical,  too,  at  need,  yet  without  a  dull  or  tiresome 
page.  It  sparkles  sometimes  with  anecdotes,  and  is  quite 
free  from  spleen  or  bitterness,  a  condemnation  of  doc- 


VI  PREFACE 

trine  never  being  made  the  ground  of  an  aspersion  of  char- 
acter. Every  allowance  that  reason  suggests  is  made  for 
the  errors  and  short-comings  of  Jesus  and  Paul.  On  the 
whole,  we  think,  that  no  candid  Christian  can  rise  from  the 
perusal  of  this  work  without  feeling  a  load  lifted  from  his 
mind  and  heart,  and  without  being  completely  satisfied 
that,  as  to  the  comparative  merit  of  Judaism  and  Christ- 
ianity, he  has  had  full  and  most  reliable  data  for  forming 
or  rectifying  his  judgment. 

As  the  word  "Lord"  was  in  a  few  instances  injudi- 
ciously employed  by  the  essayist,  it  did  not  occur  to  the 
translator  to  alter  the  term  till  too  late.  There  is  a  fre- 
quent misuse  of  the  term  Lord  throughout  the  James' 
version  of  the  so-called  Old  Testament.  The  proper  ren- 
dering of  the  original  four-letter  word  (Tetragrammaton), 
implying  past,  present  and  future,  would  have  been  the 
"Eternal."  This  remark  seems  needful  for  Christians, 
who — accustomed  to  the  application  of  Lord  to  Jesus  in 
the  "New  Testament,"  and  reading  the  captions  of  the 
English  translators  to  the  books  of  Prophets,  (so  ridicu- 
lously misleading  as  to  the  persons  or  events  therein 
referred  to) — are  much  more  liable  to  fall  into  error;  nor 
will  it  seem  trivial  to  those  conversant  with  Hebrew  liter- 
ature, so  sensitive  as  to  any  infringement  of  the  first  com- 
mandment. So  we  read : 

I,  I  am  the  Eternal,  and  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour. — Isaiah sliii,  u> 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART    FIRST. 


I. 

GENERAL  REMARKS. 

Examination  of  the  Pretensions  of  Christian  Ethics  over  Philosophy 
and  Paganism. — Its  Alleged  Superiority  to  Judaism,  and  the 
Absurdity  of  this  Assumption. — Immutability  of  Divine  Dec- 
larations ;  Man  capable  of  Perfection  only  when  the  Word  of 
God  is  Perfect— A  Revelation  Repeated  is  Suspicious  and 
Useless;  It  Militates  against  Christianity.— Dissimilarity  of 
Judaism  ;  Its  Civil  and  Moral  Polity.— The  Requisites  of  every 
Government ;  Christianity  Incapable  of  Fulfilling  them. — Pat- 
riotism a  Jewish  Sentiment. — Two  ways  of  Interpreting  Fra- 
ternity and  Universal  Equality  in  Christianity.— Defects  and 
Weakness  of  Christian  Ethics. — The  limits  of  Comparison  be- 
tween both  Systems *  1  — -12 

II. 

THE  DOCTRINES  UPON  WHICH  THE  CHRISTIAN  CODE  OF  MORALS 
IS  FOUNDED. 

Abolition  of  the  Law. — How  it  is  understood  by  Jesus.— Faith 
without  "Works. — Rupture  between  Catholicism  and  Prot- 
estantism.—With  Paul.  Faith,  without  Works.  Saves. — Con- 
tempt for  the  Body :  Mysticism. — It  ends  in  Immorality  and 
Materialism ;  Proofs  from  Reason  and  History. — Gnosticism 
and  its  Excesses  ;  Its  Seed  in  the  Gospel.— The  Spiritualism  of 
Paul,  what— The  Liberty  of  Spiritual  Death.— The  Faithful, 
dead  in  Jesus  Christ ;  Origin  of  this  Fiction.— They  rise  with 
Him;  Another  Fiction,  its  Origin  and  Effects  upon  Morality. 
—The  Redemption.— "  The  Law,  the  cause  of  Sin."— The  Re- 
demption of  the  Jew,  the  Christian 12  — -  29 

III. 

HISTORICAL  RESULTS. 

Scandals  in  the  Church. — Embarrassment  of  the  Apostles.— The 
Nicolites.— The  Prophecy  of  Thyadira.— The  Simonians.— 
Other  Gnostic  Sect5?.— Sects  of  the  Middle  Ages.— Principles 
of  Gnostic  Immorality  ;  Inferential  Theory. — Judaism  Knows  , 
Nothing  Similar.— Solitary  Exception  Confirmatory  of  our 
System.— Protestantism  and  its  Ethical  Svstms.— Quietism.  29  —  37 


TABLE  OP  CONTENTS* 

IY. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

Its  Trials  and  its  Pretentions.— Why  Hebrew  Ethics  has  not  b«en 
duly  appreciated. — Division  of  Ethics.— Dignity  of  Man,  nig 
Fall,  his  Regeneration. — Free  Judgment  and  Grace. — Life.— - 
General  Maxims. — Pharisaical  Plan.— Examples. — Testimony 
of  the  Gospels. 38  —  50 

V. 

HUMILITY. 

Abraham  and  Moses.— The  Bible.— The  "  Poor  in  Spirit."— The 
Kingdom  and  the  Earth  that  are  to  be  their  Heritage. — Cabal- 
istic Sense  necessary  for  the  Comprehension  of  the  Law.— 
Greatness  of  the  Humble. — Authority. — Example  of  Jesus. — 
Submission  to  Injury. — Other  Beatitudes. — The  Persecuted. — 
Pride.— Anger.— Serpent  and  Dove.— The  Child.— Self-Denial. 
— Voluntary  Poverty.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .....  .  .  .  .  51 — 61 

VI. 

CHARITY. 

Accusations  of  Jesus. — They  Strike  at  the  Bible  as  well  as  well  atf 
at  the  Pharisees.— Civil  Law  and  Moral  Law ;  Necessity  of 
Distinguishing. — Cupidity  and  Anger  Condemned  by  the  Phar- 
isees.— Their  Expansion  of  the  Decalogue. — Supposed  Superi- 
ority of  Gospel  Charity. — God  is  Charity. — Hebrew  Charity ; 
Distinct  from  Alms  which  it  Excludes.— The  Three  Enemies. — 
Who  the  Enemy  According  to  the  Gospel.— Country  and  Soci- 
ety in  Christianity.— Parable  of  the  Samaritan 62  —  75 

VII. 

UNIVERSAL  CHARITY. 

Qualities  of  the  Universal  Charity  of  Judaism.— Not  to  be  found  in 
Christian  Charity.— Unity  of  Man's  Origin.— The  Worth  and. 
Results  of  the  Doctrine  in  the  Teachings  of  the  Pharisees.— 
Man  made  after  God's  Image  ;  Value  of  the  Doctrine. — Unity 
of  Destiny. — Moses  and  Sophonias. — History  of  the  Primitive 
Ages. — Humanitarian  Character  of  the  Prophecies  ;  Can  be 
traced  in  the  Laws. — Justice  and  Charity  equal  for  all.— Uni- 
versal Charity  of  the  Pharisees. — Circumstances  that  Enhance 
its  Value. — Salvation  to  all  Men. — Idea  of  Man. — Humanitarian 
Ideas  of  the  Pharisees.— Gentile  Greatness  equal  to  that  of  the 
High  Priest.— Universal  Love,  Respect  for  Life,  Property,  and 
Reputation. — Restrictions.— Political  Enemy. — Christ  has  Cre- 
ated the  Religious  Enemy 75  —  85 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS*  IX 

VIII. 

PEBSONAL  ENEMIES. 

Mosaic  Precepts  and  Pharisaical  Interpretations. — Forgiveness  of 
Injuries.— Moses,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Pharisees.— Reward  of 
Pardon.— The  Pardon  of  God.— Duties  of  the  Injurer ;  Those 
of  the  Injured.— Examples  of  the  Pharisees. — What  enhances 
their  Morality 85  —  93 

IX. 

LOVE  TO   SINNERS. 

Meaning  of  the  Pharisees'  Reproach  to  Jesus.— Passage  from  Eze- 
kiel. — Pharisees  Interpretation. — Brotherly  Reproof ;  Its  Dif- 
ferent Forms. — Aaron  t  je  Model  of  a  Priest. — Abraham  the 
Model  of  Apostles. — Doctors  strive  to  convert  Sinners.— Testi- 
mony of  the  Gospels.— Privileges  of  the  Converted.— The  Gen- 
tiles.— Measure  for  Measure. — Universality  of  Judaism.  .  .  93  —  103 

X. 

TEUST  IN  GOD. 

Trust  Preached  by  Jesus.— Its  Extravagance.— Two  Pharisaical 
Schools. — The  Jewish  Prototypes  of  the  Gospel  Trust. — The 
Dogmatic  Fiction,  Making  Man  free  from  Toil.— Toil  in  Juda- 
ism and  in  Christianity. — Pharisaical  Examples.— The  Object 
of  Life  ;  The  Glory  of  God.— Our  Method  of  Comparing  the 
Two  Systems  of  Morality.— Judgment  of  Mr.  Salvador.— Its 
Inaccuracy. — His  Mode  of  Characterizing  the  Systems. — Man 
find  Woman.— The  House  and  the  Cloister Ifrt — 113 


PAJIT    SECOND. 


ISLAMISM . 

MOHAMMEDISM— Its  Doctrines 1  —  17 

Worship  and  Ethics 17—23 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

EXAMINATION  or  THE  PBETSNSIONS  OF  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS  OVER  PHILOSOPHY  AND 
PAGANISM— ITS  ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  TO  JUDAISM,  AND  THE  ABSURDITY  OF  THIS 
ASSUMPTION— IMMUTABILITY  OF  DIVINE  DECLARATIONS  ;  MAN  CAPABLE  OF  PERFEC 
TION  ONLY  WHEN  THE  WOBD  OF  GOD  is  PERFECT — A  REVELATION  REPEATED  is 
SUSPICIOUS  AND  USELESS  ;  IT  MILITATES  AGAINST  CHRISTIANITY — DISSIMILARITY  OF 
JUDAISM  ;  ITS  CIVIL  AND  MORAL  POLITY — THE  REQUISITES  OF  EVERY  GOVERNMENT  ; 
CHRISTIANITY  INCAPABLE  OF  FULFILLING  THEM — PATRIOTISM  A  JEWISH  SENTIMENT — 
Two  WAYS  OF  INTERPRETING  FRATERNITY  AND  UNIVERSAL  EQUALITY  IN  CHRIS- 
XIANTTY— DEFECTS  AND  WEAKNESS  OF  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS— THE  LIMITS  OF  COMPARISON 
BETWEEN  BOTH  SYSTEMS. 

Of  all  the  elements  that  have  aided,  in  ancient  or  modern 
times,  the  triumph  of  Christianity,  the  most  important,  unques- 
tionably, is  its  JEthics.  Christianity  entertains  so  high  an  idea  of 
its  own  moral  code,  that  it  does  not  hesitate  to  assert,  that  the 
absolute  excellence  of  this  code  is  the  best  proof  of  its  own 
divine  origin.  If  this  pretention  is  just,  then  must  its  Ethics  be 
superior,  not  only  to  the  best  products,  in  this  sphere,  of  the 
Pagan  world,  as  well  as  to  all  that  human  reason  could  ever 
produce,  but  also  to  all  that  divine  reason  has  ever  communi- 
cated in  this  respect  to  the  most  excellent  of  mankind.  For  the 
divine  origin  of  Christianity  cannot  be  proved,  without  first 
showing  that  neither  Paganism,  Philosophy,  nor  even  Judaism 
itself,  was  ever  able  to  attain  a  similar  height ;  which  implies, 
as  far  as  the  last  is  concerned,  a  maturing  process,  in  its 
manifestations  at  least,  of  Divine  reason. 

Are  these  assumptions, — is  this  pride  of  superiority  well 
founded  ?  Is  there  no  exaggeration  in  the  praise  Christianity 
lavishes  upon  itself  ? 

We  do  not  undertake  to  examine  its  relations  to  Paganism, 
or  even  to  Philosophy.  Were  such  our  aim,  it  would  be  easy 

I 


2  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

for  us,  book  in  hand,  to  show,  that,  as  to  Philosophy,  little  have 
the  pages  of  Plato,  little  the  maxims  of  the  Stoics— specially 
of  Epictetus  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  the  friends  of  Rabbi  Jehudah 
Hannassi — little  the  eloquent  passages  of  Cicero,  not  to  mention 
the  noble  things  Philosophy  has  produced,  and  may  still  produce 
in  ages  to  come, — to  envy  in  the  finest  ethical  claims  put  forth 
by  Christianity.  As  to  Paganism,  without  urging  the  simplicity, 
beauty,  and  elevation  of  Greco-Roman  poetry  or  theology,  we 
should  have  to  cite  only  from  some  sacred  book  of  the  East, 
from  Confucius  or  Menu  for  instance,  to  show  what  man  can 
extract  from  that  rich  and  inexhaustible  soil  of  divine  sift,  viz., 
the  religious  sentiment. 

But  what  directly  concerns  us  is  the  superiority  that  Chris- 
tianity arrogates  to  itself  over  Judaism,  and  the  inferiority  in 
point  of  Ethics  that  it  ascribes  to  the  latter,  inferring  therefrom, 
that  it  owes  this  nothing,  and  that  it  has  reached,  by  a  spon- 
taneous soar  alone,  so  unprecedented  an  elevation.  As  long  as 
these  assumptions  aimed  merely  to  depreciate  Pagan  morality, 
they  were,  we  must  confess,  in  a  great  measure  justifiable.  If,  as 
we  have  just  said,  Pagan  religion  and  philosophy  sometimes  ex- 
aggerated their  deserts,  their  Ethics  always  lacked  that  certainty, 
purity,  elevation,  and  independence,  which  were  the  heritage  of 
Judaism,  and  of  which  Christianity  afterwards  partook.  The 
Ethics  of  Paganism  was  not  certain,  because  its  theology,  so  far 
from  acquiring  influence  over  minds,  missed  it  rather,  by 
exhibiting  its  Gods  constantly  at  variance  with  their  own 
maxims ;  it  was  not  pure,  because  the  vilest  interests  were  its 
usual  incentives  to  action  ;  it  was  not  elevated,  because  its  views 
and  aspirations  did  not  transcend  the  horizon  of  this  life  ;  it  was 
not  independent,  because,  merged  at  one  time  in  the  State,  in 
Politics, — at  another,  enslaved  by  or  interwoven  with  these,  it  was 
hampered  by  obstacles  that  continually  stopped  its  free  develop- 
ment. These  defects  Christianity  partly  removed,  at  one  time 
falling  short  of  Hebrew  morality,  at  another,  urging  the  anti- 
Pagan  reaction  beyond  its  proper  limits,  and  injuring  itself  by 
such  fanaticism  and  excessive  austerity.  But  finally  this  religion 
made  morality  and  humanity  take  a  great  spring  ;  it  overturned 
the  altars  that  were  still  reeking  with  innocent  blood,  closed  the 
dens  where  prostitution  was  regarded  as  a  sacred  duty,  proclaimed 
the  common  origin  and  universal  brotherhood  of  mankind,  effaced 
the  brands  that  egotism,  pride,  brute  force  and  wealth  had  put  on 
the  brow  of  the  poor,  the  unhappy,  the  conquered  and  the  slave. 
These  benefits  and  many  others  are  imperishable  claims  to  the 
respect  and  gratitude  of  mankind  :  Judaism  finds  here  her  true 


JEWISH  AXD  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS.  3 

reflection,  and  glories  in  such  manifestations  ;  she  admires  those 
devoted  children,  who  issuing  from  her  fold,  filled  with  her 
spirit,  inflamed  with  that  zeal  which  made  the  Pharisees  scour 
1  'sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte,"*  have— not  brought  as 
they  boast  the  era  of  the  Messiah,  far  from  that,  but— smoothed 
the  way  for  his  advent  and  heralded  his  reign.  Yes,  the  Syna- 
gogue admires  them,  and,  though  crushed  by  the  hand  of  the 
Church,  has  not  ceased  to  declare  it,  especially  by  the  tongue 
of  Maimonides.  These  real  merits  of  Christianity  have  served 
as  a  base  for  enormous  pretensions.  Without  justice,  without 
logic,  its  Ethics  has  been  declared  superior  to  the  Hebrew. 
Christianity  itself,  with  a  wonderful  blindness,  has  given  a  free 
rein  to  prejudice,  and  permitted  the  worship  of  this  intoxicating 
incense  ;  nay  !  it  has  formally  instituted  a  comparison  between 
both  systems,  between  the  Ethics  of  Moses  and  Jesus,  and  has 
struggled,  as  in  a  medical  or  legal  competition,  to  show  the 
superiority  of  its  receipts  to  those  of  its  rival.  A  singular  and 
instructive  spectacle !  for  if,  according  to  Christian  assertion, 
the  excellence  of  Christian  Ethics  proves  its  divine  origin,  its 
pretensions  lead  us  back  to  the  lowest  earthly  regions.  For  a 
divine  ethical  system,  a  natural  sequence  to  Judaism,  would 
never  have  parted  itself  into  two  orders  or  degrees ;  it  would 
never  have  said:  "You  have  heard  what  was  told  to  past 
generations,  but  I  tell  you,  etc.;"  for  this  one  God  would  have 
been  ever  conscious  of  his  own  identity,  and  therefore  ever 
consistent  in  thought,  will,  and  laws. 

This  is  not  the  only  internal  contradiction  arising  from 
these  pretensions.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  we  have  but  to  express 
what  will  suggest  itself  to  the  mind  of  all, — has  Christianity 
any  other  base  than  that  of  Judaism?  Is  it  that  each  has  a 
different  God,  a  different  will,  a  different  authority  ?  Or  would 
evangelical  Christianity  adopt  the  doctrine  of  Marcion  (far  more 
reasonable,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  than  its  own),  which  has 
made  of  the  God  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  God  of  the  Christians 
two  beings,  two  wills,  two  laws,  in  constant  antagonism  ?  No  ; 
for  evangelical  Christianity  both  gods  are  identical ;  it  is  but  one 
will  expressing  itself  by  two  different  instruments.  Now,  can 
God  be  superior  to  God  ?  Can  the  Immutable  have  now  one  will, 
now  another  ?  Can  he  impose  laws  in  different  approximations 
to  perfection  ?  And  must  not  any  declaration  of  his  will,  when 
once  made,  be  consistent  with  every  other  expression  ?  Now, 
according  to  the  admission  of  Christianity,  God  has  spoken 
to  the  patriarchs,  to  Moses,  and  given  them  a  system  of  Ethics 

*  M»tt.  xxiii.  15. 


4  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

absolutely  perfect,  because  nothing  less  than  that  could  emanate 
from  God ;  otherwise  he,  too,  would  be  subject  to  time,  accident, 
and  change.  But  we  are  told  that  man  is  not  capable  of  reaching 
at  a  bound  the  heights  of  perfection,  and  that  he  is  essentially  a 
creature  of  progress.  Yes,  we  reply,  and  it  is  for  that  very 
reason,  and  in  order  that  man  may  attain  perfection  that  God's 
word  is  perfect.  Man  strives  to  realize  it  step  by  step.  Like 
the  external  world,  that  issues  from  God,  consisting  of  imperish- 
able elements,  so  the  second  creation,  the  ideal  world,  his 
word,  issues  from  him  perfect  and  complete.  It  falls  like  the 
first,  amid  the  accidents  of  time,  the  fate  and  conditions  of 
which  it  partakes.  It  hides,  like  the  first,  in  its  inmost  depths, 
unknown  power  for  man's  discovery,  and  permits  him  to  realize 
only  by  degrees  its  beauties  and  its  wealth.  But  both  creations, 
perfect  in  themselves,  are  progressive  only  as  regards  their 
realization.  No  ;  the  law  of  God  is  not  progressive,  and  man, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  so  only  because  it  is  perfect.  How,  indeed, 
can  we  conceive  progression  without  an  ideally  perfect  law, 
the  successive  realization  of  whose  traits  constitutes  progress  ? 
What  idea  can  we  have  of  evolution  without  a  starting  point  and 
goal, — of  a  work,  without  a  plan  or  theory  ? 

Now  what  has  Christianity  substituted  for  the  God  of  the 
Jews,  the  First-and- the- Last,  *  the  author  of  the  beginning  and 
end  of  man  and  of  the  world  ?  It  has  ascribed  progression  to 
God  himself,  at  least  to  his  external  word;  ass'erting  that  this 
last  bends  to  circumstances,  to  custom,  even  to  the  weakness 
of  man,— has  ascribed  to  him  the  flexibility  of  Paul  (who  is  a 
Jew  to  Jews  and  a  Gentile  to  Gentiles),  and  the  base  concessions 
of  Jesuits  to  idolaters ;  it  has  made  a  god  after  its  own  image, 
like  the  gods  of  Homer,  instead  of  making  man  after  the  image 
of  God,  as  Moses  teaches.  Thus  it  not  only  violates  common 
sense  (which  can  ascribe  to  Deity  but  one  will)  but  it  makes  all 
revelation  useless,  and  by  establishing  a  principle  that  recoils 
against  itself  and  imperils  each  moment  its  existence,  saps 
its  own  foundation.  With  such  a  theory  how  could  any  revela- 
tion be  necessary  ?  Tell  us  of  a  revelation  (worthy  of  the  name) 
that  comes  to  teach  man  truth  he  could  not  "otherwise  learn,  to 
give  him  a  theory  of  moral  government  and  virtue  which  his 
unassisted  reason  could  not  originate, — and  this  very  reason 
shall  bow  before  it,  because  the  mark  of  its  divine  origin  will 
be  apparent.  But  a  different  revelation,— one  that  only  follows 
step  by  step  the  natural  developments  of  man's  powers,  and 
that,  instead  of  uttering  at  once  its  final  word  even  at  the  risk 

*  Isaiah  *liv.  6. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS,  5 

of  being  misunderstood,  doles  out  eternal  truth  as  the  mind 
and  heart  are  disposed  to  receive  it — such  a  revelation  I  say 
would  be  at  the  outset  a  very  suspicious  one  to  a  sagacious 
critic,  and  above  all  would  be  altogether  needless  as  having 
naught  to  tell  men  that  they  could  not  tell  themselves. 

Much  more ;  it  is  in  Jewish  revelation  that  we  find  the 
titles,  promises,  and  prophecies  upon  which  Christianity  is  based. 
Now,  what  assurance  have  we  that  some  social,  mental,  or  moral 
change  in  man  will  not  require  different  methods,  different 
laws, — and  that  the  Messianic  promises  will  not  be  in  their 
turn  obliterated  ?  And  even  though  they  should  be  verified  in 
Christianity  (which,  let  us  suppose,  fulfilled  the  prophecies),  can 
it  pretend  to  arrest  forever  the  progress  of  the  world  ? — to  have 
exhausted  the  divine  wisdom  and  fertility,  and  consigned  God's 
word  to  an  eternal  silence  ? — to  have  closed,  for  its  special 
benefit,  the  epochs  of  revelation? 

This  Mosaic  law,  whose  permanence  seemed  foreshadowed 
by  so  many  miracles,  so  many  resources,  has  been  supplanted 
you  say  by  another  law,  another  covenant,  of  which  it  was 
but  the  shadow  and  forerunner.  What  tells  us  that  this  latter 
is  not  likewise  a  type  of  and  preparation  for  a  purer  religion  ? 
Is  it  because  God  is  exhausted?  Or  because  man  has  changed 
his  nature?  Is  it  because  he  has  no  more  social,  moral,  or 
intellectual  changes,  through  which  to  pass?  Shall  the  need 
of  a  new  revelation,  manifesting  itself  a  little  more  than  ten 
centuries  after  the  first,  never  again  show  itself  in  twenty, 
thirty,  or  even  fifty  centuries  after  the  Gospel?  To  maintain 
this  is  impossible.  There  is  a  word  which  Christianity  by  its 
assumption  of  superiority  has  attached  forever  to  its  existence, 
to  its  role  in  the  world ;  there  is  a  name,  which,  after  centuries, 
has  become  the  mark  of  the  greatest  schism,  the  greatest  rupture 
that  the  Church  has  as  yet  undergone — namely  PROTESTANTISM. 
But  it  was  Christianity  that  introduced  this  very  Protestantism 
into  the  world  by  establishing  a  principle  which,  from  age  to 
age,  has  recoiled  upon  itself,  and  which  shall  one  day  open 
the  door  to  another  Christianity,  another  Messiah.  For  in  the 
hands  of  God,  evil  works  its  own  cure.  In  short,  the  Church 
has  had  and  will  have  Protestants,  only  because  she  herself 
first  protested  against  Judaism. 

So  we  see  Christianity  cannot  claim  a  morality  superior  to 
that  of  Judaism  without  wounding  its  own  dearest  interest, 
violating  logic,  and  crumbling  the  very  bases  upon  which 
are  founded  all  religion  and  all  morality.  Let  us,  however, 
descend  from  these  high  abstractions,  where  Truth,  though 


6  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

more  brilliant,  is,  by  reason  of  this  very  elevation,  less  tangible 
for  ordinary  minds.  Let  us  institute,  if  possible,  a  comparison, 
fixing  its  conditions  and  limits,  and  let  us  see  in  the  detail — 
if  it  be  from  its  own,  root  that  Christianity  has  drawn  its 
ethics, — its  chief  claim  to  the  esteem  of  mankind; — or  if  it 
be  not  rather  the  natal  surroundings,  the  religion  in  which  it 
is  rooted  that  supplied  it  with-  the  principles  and  elements 
which  were,  alas!  but  too  soon  forgotten. 

A  question  at  the  outset  presents  itself ;  and,  although  it  may 
appear  at  first  sight  a  little  strange,  we  must  not  neglect  it, 
full  sure  that  its  importance  will  be  at  once  admitted.  Are 
we,  in  the  present  comparison,  about  to  compare  one  system 
of  Ethics  with  another  ?  Have  we  here  two  homogeneous 
terms  that  can  be  weighed  in  the  same  balance  so  that  the 
worth  of  each  can  be  estimated.  This  consideration  is  clearly 
of  great  importance.  If  it  were  true  that,  in  comparing 
Judaism  with  Christianity  (as  has  been  the  uniform  custom), 
two  systems,  two  principles,  of  totally  different  characters, 
were  compared,  and  that  a  mere  system  of  Ethics  (Christianity), 
were  weighed  against  a  system  of  Ethics  and  of  Politics  com- 
bined, or  rather  against  the  latter  exclusively,  no  one  could 
maintain  that  the  verdict,  whatever  it  might  be,  could  be  just. 
Now  I  ask,  is  it  not  this  precisely  that  has  been  hitherto 
done  ?  Except  some  few  who  have  made  allowance — and 
that  an  inadequate  one — for  this  two-fold  character  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  all,  both  friends  and  foes,  have  merely  taken  the 
book  of  Moses  in  one  hand  and  the  Gospel  in  the  other,  and 
pronounced  to  which  the  palm  of  superiority  should  be  awarded. 
Nevertheless,  all  recognize  in  Judaism  two  things  very  distinct 
as  regards  the  nature,  object  and  means  of  each;  that  it  consists 
of  a  civil  as  well  as  a  moral  code.  Doubtless,  there  is  unity 
in  Judaism;  its  civil  code  blends  in  a  thousand  ways  with  its 
moral  one,  borrowing  sometimes  the  language  of  the  latter, 
sometimes  adorning  itself  with  its  holy  splendor.  Doubtless 
too,  its  Ethics  serves  not  only  to  purify,  enlighten  and  satisfy 
the  conscience, — to  make  good  citizens  for  the  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem,— but  also  good  patriots,  good  Israelites,  good  citizens  for 
the  earthly  Jerusalem.  And,  in  short,  there  doubtless  exists 
between  both  systems  a  continual  interchange  of  service,  a 
reciprocity  highly  useful  to  both.  But  just  as  it  would  be 
indiscreet  to  separate  these  in  their  practical  working  at  Jeru- 
salem, so  it  would  be  unjust  to  confound  them  in  a  theoretic 
examination,  especially  when  face  to  face  with  an  ethical 
system,  which  not  only  has  nothing  to  do  with,  but  even 


JEWISH  AND  CHKISTIAN  ETHICS.  7 

repudiates  politics,  and  is  its  most  formidable  living  adversary. 
It  is  then,  only  strict  justice,  to  distinguish  well  the  ethics  of 
Judaism  from  its  politics;  the  civil  code  from  the  religious; 
the  citizen  from  the  Monotheist ;  or— to  express  this  difference 
by  two  names  equally  dear  to  God's  people — the  Jew  from 
the  Hebrew,  the  member  of  a  state  government  by  the  Judaic 
dynasty  from  the  Hebrew,  the  son  of  Abraham,  the  disciple 
and  follower  of  his  faith.*  Through  not  undertanding  this 
truth,  the  Christian  Ethics  has  been  judged  superior  to  that 
of  the  Jews,  or  rather  to  their  politics.  Could  it  be  otherwise  ? 
Could  a  system  of  civil  government^  however  pure,  however 
just,  ever  compete  with  a  system  of  abstract  morality  ?  Could 
the  duties  of  a  nation  be  framed  upon  those  of  an  individual, 
or  could  international  law  be  ever  successfully  supplanted  by 
the  "Imitation  of  Christ?"  I  shall  cite  but  one  striking 
example  of  this  self-evident  truth,  viz.,  the  forgiveness  of 
injuries, — the  very  one  through  which  Christianity  is  thought 
to  approach  perfection.  Now,  try  to  apply  this  principle  to 
nations;  lay  before  them  those  precepts  of  humility,  for- 
bearance, patience  and  long  suffering  that  so  abound  in  the 
Gospel;  tell  them,  if  you  dare,  to  allow  their  cheeks  to  be 
smitten,  to  be  spit  upon,  to  swallow  in  silence,  and  even  to 
requite  with  benefits  the  most  atrocious  injuries — deeds  the  most 
sanguinary — and  see  if  a  nation  can  maintain  itself  with  such 
a  code,  if  invasion,  conquest,  slavery,  and  annihilation  will 
not  be  at  once  the  inevitable  consequence  ?  No  !  If  a  country 
or  state  must  live,  if  nationality  be  not  an  empty  term,  the 
moral  code  of  the  Gospel  can  never  be  the  law  of  nations.  And 
why  ?  Because  a  nation  has  less  duties  than  an  individual ; 
because  the  number  of  its  duties  always  diminish  as  the  body 
politic  expands ;  being  for  a  family  less  than  for  an  individual ; 
for  town  less  than  for  a  family,  for  a  state  less  than  for  a  single 
town,  and  less  for  all  mankind  than  for  any  single  state.  For 
each  of  these  different  centres  owes  allegiance  only  to  its 
superior;  humanity,  for  example,  has  duties  only  to  its  God; 
to  naught  else  should  it  bend  or  subordinate  itself.  Now,  if  a 
nation  has  a  right  to  exist,  if  its  duties  consist  precisely  in 
disregarding  the  Ethics  of  an  individual  (in  its  extreme  con- 
sequences at  least),  if  Israel  lay  under  the  same  necessities  as 
every  other  nation  and  under  far  greater  ones  still,  (encom- 
passed as  it  was  by  ignorance,  injustice  and  barbarism),  if  it  was 
in  this  condition  by  the  express  will  of  God,  if  its  existence 
was  inseparably  connected  with  the  greatest  and  most  sacred 

*  Genlaes  xivi  13. 


8  JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS. 

interests,  with  the  religious  destiny  of  the  whole  world, — can  we 
be  surprised  that  its  law-giver  imposed  on  it  the  rules  indis- 
pensable to  a  wise  policy,  and  brought  universal  charity  under 
the  restrictions  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  nation? 
And,  I  dare  affirm,  that  without  such  measures  no  earthly 
power  could  have  saved  the  people  of  Israel  from  speedy 
destruction. 

Christianity  itself, -has  felt  this  full  well.  It  quickly  per- 
ceived that,  in  the  Ethics  it  prefcched  to  the  world,  there 
was  no  place  for  the  different  nationalities, — these  large  in- 
dividualities in  the  still  larger  family  of  man.  Accordingly 
from  the  outset,  with  one  hand  it  presents  the  Jews  with 
their  new  code  of  morals,  with  the  other  it  points  to  that  Temple 
— which  God  and  the  people,  religion  and  the  state  had  made 
their  most  august  abode — not  a  memorial  stone  of  which  the 
flames  had  allowed  to  remain.  Accordingly,  beside  its  ascectic 
morality  it  places  its  ascetic  kingdom,  its  all-spiritual-Messiah, 
if  I  may  use  the  expression;  and  in  place  of  a  political  liberty 
it  offers  its  votaries  a  spiritual  one.  Strangers  to  the  struggle, 
the  efforts,  the  sacrifices  with  which  that  heroic  little  band  of 
Jews  met  the  Romans  in  the  last  crisis  of  their  national  life, 
the  Christians  at  Pella  saw  in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
Temple,  the  end  of  the  earthly  reign  of  that  law  whose  spiritual 
overthrow  they  sought, — and  the  exile  of  a  great  nation  was 
the  first  homage  paid  to  the  morality  of  the  Gospel*. 

But  a  greater  field  opened  before  Christianity ;  its  acts,  in- 
fluence and  ethics  were  now  to  operate  upon  countless  numbers, 
upon  an  empire  a  thousand  times  greater  than  Palestine.  We 
take  good  care  neither  to  overlook  the  benefits  that  this  morality 
heaped  upon  the  wretched  of  every  kind,  the  comfort  and  new 
life  that  it  brought  them,  nor  to  re-echo  those  old  Pagan  accusa- 
tions that  some  modern  authors  have  revived  for  their  own 
benefit,  wherein  Christians  were  looked  upon  as  conspirators, 
rebels  and  enemies  of  the  Roman  Empire.  We  shall  only 
examine  its  relation  to  the  patriotic  sentiment,  to  religion,  to 
love,  and  to  a  national  existence.  Now  I  say,  that  neither 
during  the  Roman  nor  any  subsequent  period  had  Christianity 
anything  to  present  to  feelings  so  natural  to  man  j  that  it  only 
impeded  the  natural  development  of  these  feelings,  and  that 
its  action  was  always  wavering,  always  hampered  whenever 
it  had  to  declare  itself  respecting  patriotic  duties.  Christianity 
preached  a  great  principle,  universal  fraternity, — a  principle 
taken  indeed  from,  Judaism,  but  one  in  no  wise  tempered,  as 
in  the  latter  system,  by  national  fraternity.  On  the  contrary, 


JEWISH  AND  CHBISTTAN  ETHICS.  9 

Christianity  made,  for  the  benefit  of  humanitarian  brotherhood, 
that  sacrifice,  which  the  ancient  legislators  had  made,  some- 
times of  the  individual  to  the  family,  by  exagerating  parental 
rights,  and  at  others,  of  the  family  to  the  state,  by  the  creation 
of  this  last  absorbing  personality.  Christianity,  then,  skipped  a 
step,  and  in  its  turn  swept  away  nationalities  from  the  affection 
of  mankind.  Impossible,  thenceforth,  to  regard  the  political 
enemy  other  than  a  brother ;  impossible  for  the  heart,  the  arm, 
not  to  tremble,  whenever  man,  wounded  man,  or  brethren  smote 
each  other,  all  men  being  according  to  Christianity,  equal — that 
is,  in  the  words  of  Paul  himsell,  the  Barbarian,  Scythian,  Greek 
and  Jew.  Can  we  in  short,  express  this  great  truth  more  elo- 
quently or  boldly  than  an  eminent  writer  has  lately  done: 
"Patriotism,"  says  he,  "exists  under  the  old  law,  but  theore- 
tically has  no  place  in  the  new ;  and  the  day  the  Gospel  was 
preached  to  the  Gentiles  was  in  tendency  THE  LAST  DAY  OF 
NATIONALITIES."  And  again  :  "  The  feeling  of  nationality, 
such  as  swells  in  the  English  breast,  is  an  affection  essentially 
Jewish.  One  might  suppose  that  English  society  was  a  con- 
vention Of  the  CIRCUMCISED." 

It  must  be  said,  however,  that  this  equality  was  successively 
understood  by  Christianity  in  twa-different  ways.  At  first  it  was 
only  apathetic  and  indifferent  as  to  national  distinctions,  and 
its  Catholicism  in  this  respect  was  but  negative.  But  it  soon 
changed  its  spirit ;  for,  becoming  triumphant,  it  sought  to  realize 
this  equality,  this  universal  brotherhood  in  a  very  tangible 
manner ;  and  lo !  the  Papacy  rose.  And  so  we  have,  in  one 
way  or  the  other,  the  destruction  of  national  diversities  always 
arising  from  an  universal  apathy  or  an  universal  empire.  And 
why  ?  Because  Christianity  absolutely  lacks  a  side,  the  social  or 
political  side, — either  through  the  extravagance  and  exclusive- 
ness  of  its  ethics,  or  through  its  ultramundane  aspirations,  ever 
on  the  point  of  realization ; — because  with  its  ethics  it  had  no 
jurisprudence,  with  an  altar  no  throne,  which  in  truth  it  merged 
in  the  former. 

We  are  now  about  to  glance  at  one  of  the  main  dangers,  at 
one  of  the  weakest  spots  in  the  Christian  ethics ;  we  are  about  to 
see  that  not  only  would  it  be  very  unjust  (as  we  have  shown)  to 
compare  a  moral  system  on  one  side,  with  a  political  one  on  the 
other— that  not  only  has  Christianity  this  gap,  this  void  which 
has  made  its  existence  embarrassed  and  embarrassing  in  the 
world — but  that  its  beautiful  morality,  exquisite  as  it  appears, 
could  not,  from  its  very  refinement,  evade  the  consequences  of 
this  blank,  this  want  of  the  political  element,  which  constitutes 


10  JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS. 

the  weakness  at  once  and  the  glory  of  Judaism ;  and  that  the 
great  principle  of  charity  destroyed  itself,  not  being  allowed  to 
play  its  legitimate  part  with  its  kindred  justice. 

In  vain  did  the  new  religion  know  only  the  spirit ;  in  vain 
did  it  trample  under  foot,  all  the  interests,  all  the  wants  of  life  ; 
in  vain  did  it  incessantly  fix  its  gaze  upon  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
where  it  was  to  reign  supreme ;  in  vain  did  it  predict  the  near 
advent  of  this,  and  plume  itself  as  almost  on  the  verge  of  the 
general  resurrection,  of  a  universal  regeneration, — it  could  not, 
withal  change  the  nature  of  things.  The  world  kept  on  its  way, 
in  spite  of  all  predictions  to  the  contrary,  and  Christianity  found 
itself  involved  in  that  world  whose  destruction  it  thought  at 
hand,  in  that  society  whose  transformation  into  immortal 
beings  it  had  hoped  soon  to  see,  in  those  interests  for  which 
it  had  neglected  to  provide,  in  those  rights  and  duties  that 
political  and  social  life  begets.  Persecuted  at  first,  Christianity 
requited  itself  for  the  blood  it  generously  shed — mingled  never- 
theless with  that  of  the  Jews — in  all  parts  of  the  Empire.  But 
its  triumph  prepared  for  it  a  much  severer  trial.  Once  master 
of  that  people  upon  which  it  had  not  reckoned,  it  would  have 
escaped  all  danger,  if  it  had  like  Judaism  a  king  to  place  on  the 
throne,  a  code  to  give  the  courts  of  justice,  a  policy  with  which 
to  guide  the  chariot  of  State,  and  if  it  had  taken  care,  like 
Judaism,  to  distinguish  worldly,  social  and  political  concerns, 
from  those  relating  to  morals,  religion  and  dogmas.  But  Chris- 
tianity had  only,  and  was  only,  a  religion  ;  its  law,  its  state 
policy,  its  throne,  were  respectively,  the  dogma,  the  worship  of 
God,  and  the  altar.  Master  one  time,  of  the  world,  whom  shall 
it  place  upon  the  empty  throne  ?  Who  is  to  hold  the  sword  of 
the  law  ?  This  is  the  crisis  in  the  history  of  Christianity. 
Christianity,  with  the  best  intentions  in  the  world,  believed  it 
could  do  nothing  better  than  occupy  the  throne  itself,  than  seize, 
itself,  the  scepter  of  justice,  that  is  to  say,  subject  to  its  dogmas, 
its  religion  and  its  laws,  the  public  authority;  in  other  words 
to  enlist  law,  state,  royalty  in  the  service  of  its  religion,  to  place 
its  dogmas  on  an  equal  footing  with  political  institutions,  to 
substitute  religion  for  national  duties,  and  to  give  ethics  the 
same  rank  as  public  virtues;  in  a  word,  to  substitute  for  the 
citizen,  conscience.  Is  this  not  what  is  called,  in  general  terms, 
a  state-religion?  Now,  what  is  a  state-religion?  It  is  con- 
science treated  as  a  citizen,  the  mind  subjugated,  disciplined  like 
the  body,  one's  creed  encompassed  with  penalties,  executioners, 
pyres;  it  is  violence,  injustice,  tyranny  serving  a  religion  all 
charity.  And  just  because  it  had  only  charity,  but  no  idea  to 


JFWTSH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS- 


justiee,  because  it  advocated  only  love,  and  not 

devoted  itself  to  the  worship  of  virtues  the  in< 

it  neglected  those  inferior  perhaps,  but  equally  holy* 

useful, — in  fine  because  it  aimed  at  being  more  thanj-ust,  it  was 

doomed  to  be  violent. 

And  Judaism  ?  It  had  a  political  system  ;  it  did  not  disdain 
to  mix  in  the  affairs  of  this  world;  it  offered  to  the  million, 
daily  bread,  air,  sunlight,  protection,  good  laws,  justice  to  re- 
spect, a  country  to  love,  interests  to  care  for,  public  virtues  to 
practice,  which,  though  not  absolutely  spiritual,  were  far  more 
necessary— were  (I  may  affirm)  heaven  brought  to  earth,  because 
they  are  eternal  truth— eternal  beauty  and  eternal  love  ever 
applied  to  and  intermingled  with  the  concerns  of  life,  the  Glory 
(Schechina)  which  spans  the  earth.  And — what  is  a  thousand 
times  more  admirable  and  the  proof  of  its  divine  origin — at 
the  core  of  this  Judaism,  so  homogeneous  and  compact,  is  ever  a 
broad  line  of  demarcation  between  religion  and  the  state,  the 
citizen  and  the  monotheist,  belief  and  justice,  dogmas  and  the 
Law  !  In  it,  conscience,  the  sphere  of  faith,  and  the  forum,  the 
sphere  of  politics,  never  exchanged  parts  or  powers.  Never  was 
remorse -supplanted  by  the  scaffold,  or  hell  by  death.  No-civil 
penalty  for  impiety,  and  no  spiritual  burden  for  the  citizen.  It 
had  a  code,  solely  politic,  the  law  of  Moses;  and  a  code,  solely 
religious,  tradition.  Not  that  the  first  has  not  the  same  origin 
and  design  as  the  second  ;  not  that  the  latter  does  not  presuppose 
and  supplement  the  former  ;  but  the  one  is  rather  the  guide  for 
the  bodjr,  and  prefers  to  speak  to  the  citizen,  to  the  people,  to 
their  interests,  their  remembrances,  their  hopes  ;  the  other  is  the 
guide  rather  of  morals  and  of  mind,  and  appeals  more  willingly 
to  the  conscience  and  the  soul,  to  their  past,  their  future,  their 
eternal  interests.  To  compare  Christian  ethics  with  the  first  is 
not  only  an  injustice  but  an  impropriety;  for  it  exposes  the 
nakedness  of  Christianity  —  exposes  that  void  which  has  led 
charity  to  be  less  than  just,  in  not  reserving  a  suitable  place  for 
the  duties  and  concerns  of  life. 

But  we  must  compare  the  ethics  of  Christianity  with  the 
simple  unmixed  ethics  of  Judaism.  The  former,  as  it  is  already 
suspected  has  doubtless  its  source  chiefly  in  the  sacred  writings, 
but  above  all  in  tradition ;  it  is  this  last  principally  that  we  are 
about  to  confront  with  the  ethics  of  the  Gospel.  "We  shall  not 
then  be  accused  of  choosing  a  ground  favorable  for  the  victory  of 
Jewish  ethics,  so  much  and  so  long  decried.  The  Pharisees  have 
been  so  great  a  butt  for  the  derision  of  the  Church,  and  the  latter 
seemed  to  stand  in  so  little  fear  of  a  competition  with  them,  that 


12  JEWISH  AND  CHBISTIAN  ETHICS.       , 

we  hope  these  same  poor  Pharisees  will  be  allowed  to  placo 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  articles  of 
their  indictment,  and  the  grounds  of  their  secular  condemnation. 
Besides,  it  is  Judaism  as  it  is  that  we  contrast  with  Christian 
ethics.  And  far  from  imitating  those  who,  fearing  a  flood,  take 
i?efuge  in  the  mountains,  we  shall  not  shield  ourselves  behind 
the  Bible,  (an  object  of  veneration  to  both),  to  resist  the  preten- 
sions of  the  Christian  ethics.  We  shall  take  the  rabbinical, 
traditional  Judaism  that  centuries  have  made,  and  we  think 
besides  that  we  shall  better  serve  the  cause  of  criticism  by  thus 
studying  Christianity  in  all  its  birth-surroundings,  in  the  teach- 
ings and  moral  philosophy  of  that  time,  than  by  restricting 
ourselves  to  an  antiquity,  whose  workings,  though  unquestion- 
able, could  not  have  been  as  precise,  as  evident  or  as  consecutive? 
as  those  of  Pharisaical  Judaism. 


CHAPTER  II. 

TOT  DOCTBINES  UPON   WHICH    THK  CHBISTIAN    CODE  OF  MoBALS  IS  FOUNDED— ABOLITIQW 

OF  THE  LAW — HOW  IT  IS  UNDEB8TOOD  BY  JESUS — FAITH  WITHOUT  WOBKS — RUPTUEE 
BETWEEN  CATHOLICISM  AND  PBOTESTANTISM— WITH  PAUL,  FA!TH,  WITHOUT  WORKS, 
SAVES— CONTEMPT  FOB  THE  BODY  ;  MYSTICISM— IT  ENDS  IN  IMMOBAUTY  AND 
MATEBIALISM  ;  PBOOFS  FBOM  EEASON  AND  HisieBY— GNOSTICISM  AND  ITS  EX- 
CESSES J  ITS  SEED  IN  THE  GOSPEL — THE  SPIBITUALISM  OF  PAUL,  WHAT — THE 

LIBEBTY  OF  SPIBITUAL  DEATH — THE  FAITHFUL,  DEAD  IN  JESUS  CHBIST  ;  OBIGIN 
OF  THIS  FICTION— THEY  BISE  WITH  HlM  ;  ANOTHER  FICTION,  ITS  OBIGIN  AND 
EFFECTS  UPON  MoBALITY — THE  REDEMPTION — "THE  LAW,  THE  CAUSE  OF  BIN" — 
THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  JEW,  THE  CHBISTIAN. 

But  before  proceeding  with  this  comparison,  let  us  examine 
whether  certain  doctrines,  forming  the  basis  of -Christian -ethics, 
are  as  sure  and  immoveable  as  represented.  All  agree,  that  a 
building,  however  large  and  splendid,  affords- no  secure  protec- 
tion, if  its  solidity  be  not  in  proportion  to  its  size.  Are  the 
foundations  of  the  Christian  ethics,  so  solid,  that  unaided,  it 
irrisistably  conquers  all  hearts  ? 

An  announcement  made  almost  at  the  birth  of  Christianity, 
was  calculated  to  have  great  influence  in  moulding  the-destiny  of 
its  ethics,  and  that  was  the  abolition  of  the  Law.  Our  duty 
at  present  is  not  to  examine  the  great  question  concerning  the 
relations  of  Jesus  to  the  Law,  or  to  what  degree  he  advocated  its 
preservation  or  annulment.  If  we  might  anticipate  what  we 
have  to  say  respecting  the  Law,  we  should  say  that  Jesus,  think- 
ing the  era  of  the  Messiah  identical  with  that  of  the  resurrection 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  13 

or  universal  regeneration,  believed  he  was  on  the  eve  of  legiti- 
mately abrogating  the  Law,  when  the  dead,  just  before  rising 
from  their  graves,  should  assume  immortal  bodies. 

We  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  see  what  deep  roots  this  belief 
had  in  existing  Judaism,  and  how,  for  want  of  the  reality,  of 
a  proper  and  real  resurrection  the  Christians  substituted  a  figura- 
tive one — a  pure  fiction.  However  that  may  be,  the  abolition  of 
the  Law  was  early  proclaimed  by  Christianity.  Xow,  it  is 
easy  to  imagine  into  what  trouble  and  confusion  this  bold  stroke 
would  throw  the  conscience,  and  what  grand  dangers  a  system  of 
ethics,  formulized,  sanctioned  and  taught  by  this  very  Law 
whose  fall  it  announced,  was  about  to  encounter.  We  ought  to 
be  able  to  cite  facts  and  illustrations  as  to  the  results  we  indicate, 
and  we  shall  accordingly  soon  see  them  teeming,  after  we  shall 
have  enumerated, the  causes  which  left  Christianity,  from  its 
very  origin,  at  the  mercy  of  the  waves  of  opinion,  and  even 
exposed  to  destruction.  What  we  wish  to  state  here  is  the  fatal 
precedent  that  Christianity  established  against  morality  by  this 
abolition  of  the  Law.  For  mark  well :  when  a  nation  possesses 
a  revealed  code,  meant  to  rule  the  mind,  when  in  this  revelation 
the  entire  life  of  a  people  is  regulated  and  marked  out  in  ad- 
vance, when  neither  the  actions,  the  feelings  nor  the  moral 
relations  cf  man  with  man  escape  its  provisions,  when  finally  the 
ethical  system,  of  the  same  parent  as  the  jurisprudence,  the 
political  economy,  the  mode  of  worship,  the  religious  doctrines, 
— shakes  off  its  authority;  when  this  nation,  accustomed  for  ages 
to  regard  this  revelation  as  its  rule  of  conduct  in  ethics  as  well 
as  religion,  and  the  most  natural  ethical  precepts  as  positive  laws, 
is  told  some  fine  day  that  this  law  "is  played  out,"  that  it  was 
only  the  type  and  shadow  of  what  was  to  come,  that,  at  best, 
it  was  only  good  for  children,  that  it  is  the  source  of  "  death  and 
si;j,"  nothing  better  than  "wretched  slavery"  (Paul),  that  a  law 
of  freedom  (?)  is  about  to  replace  it  ;  when  this  great  word,  free- 
dom, is  sounded  in  a  thousand  ways  and  on  all  occasions  ;  much 
more,  when  the  Gentiles,  who  know  nothing  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
hear  that  a  revelation  which  had  provided  for  ethics"  as  well  as 
worship,  is  about  to  give  way  to  a  law  of  grace,  of  freedom — who 
does  not  see  that  morality  is  struck  down  with  doctrine,  worship 
and  legislation  ?  Where  shall  reason  take  refuge  when  this  great 
catastrophe  arrives?  For  let  it  be  well  understood,  here  is 
not  a  reason  of  philosophy  which,  by  its  own  strength,  has 
formed  a  system  of  ethics  purely  rational ;  nor  yet  a  dawning 
reason,  that  distinguishes  what  comes  from  its  own  nature  from 
within,  from  what  comes  to  it  from  without— but  the  reason  of 


14:  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

antiquity,  of  all  time,  of  every  kind,  that  admits  and  recognizes 
a  revelation.  What  shall  it  substitute  for  this  ruined  ethical 
system  ?  It  has  neither  an  ethics  of  philosophy  nor  of  nature  to 
put  in  its  place ;  it  has  only  sentiment,  and  of  that  it  avails  itself. 
This,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  most  probable  explanation  of  that 
predominance  of  sentiment  in  the  Christian  ethics.  This  is  why 
its  first  founders  incessantly  appeal  to  sentiment  and  not  to 
reason ;  this  is  the  source  from  which  the  Christian  ethics  has 
drawn  the  grace,  pathos  and  delicacy  that  so  characterize  it ;  and 
hence,  too,  the  horror  of  polemical  disputation,  Faith  usurping 
the  place  of  logic  and  science. 

In  vain,  truly,  would  it  have  appealed  to  reason,  for  this 
would  have  always  opposed  to  its  new  masters,  that  law  of 
Moses,  that  Judaism,  ethical  no  less  than  doctrinal  and  legis- 
lative, given  by  the  very  God  that  was  preached  yet  repudiated. 
In  vain  would  it  have  added  that  the  will  of  God,  changed  as  to 
all  else,  had  remained  fixed  and  unaltered  as  to  ethics ;  in  vain 
would  it  have  laboriously  gleaned  and  sifted  from  civil  and 
religious  ordinances,  from  doctrine  and  ritual,  those  moral  pre- 
cepts blended  and  incorporated  with  the  general  system,  to 
construct  something  independent,  sacred  and  inviolable  from  the 
wreck  of  Judaism.  Keason  would  have  rejected  these  arbitrary 
distinctions.  It  would  have  pointed  to  the  same  God,  the  same 
revelation  giving  the  most  sublime  moral  precepts,  as,  To  love 
one's  neighbor  as  one's  self,  in  conjunction  with  the  humblest, 
the  most  mysterious  of  ritual  prohibitions  against  the  mixing  of 
seeds.  It  would  have  said  that  if  the  will  of  God  changed  on  one 
point  it  might  change  on  another ;  that  no  difference  of  lan- 
guage, no  mark,  in  this  system  so  homogeneous,  indicated  what 
was  for  a  time,  and  what  was  for  ever ;  that  the  ceremonials  of 
the  system,  its  rewards,  punishments,  and  exhortations  gave  the 
ethical  part  no  special,  independent  or  privileged  place ;  that 
quite  the  contrary,  penalties  the  most  terrible,  rewards  the  most 
munificent  were  attached  to  the  ceremonial  laws,  exactly,  per- 
haps, because  they  have  such  weak  roots  in  the  heart  and  reason 
of  man.  Such  is  the  language  of  reason.  And  this  language  was, 
in  all  probability  actually  uttered,  not  only  by  the  faithful,  but 
forced  likewise,  by  logic  and  good  sense,  from  the  apostles  them- 
selves, and  above-all  from  those  who  took  the  most  active  part  in 
the  abolition  of  the  Law.  Among  the  latter  the  chief  place 
certainly  belongs  to  Paul.  Now  what  is  the  new  principle 
proclaimed  by  him  ?  It  is  faith ;  faith  as  the  highest  virtue 
enjoined  on  mankind,  faith  opposed  as  such  not  only  to  science, 
to  vain  disputes,  to  vain  jargon,  as  we  have  elsewhere  observed, 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  15 

but  also  faith  opposed  as  such  to  works;  that  is  to  say,— if  one 
believes  in  Jesus,  the  God — Messiah,  in  his  personal  divinity  and 
mission,  in  the  efficacy  of  his  death,  in  his  resurrection,  he  has 
no  longer  need  of  works  to  obtain  salvation, 

We  should  be  sorely  grieved,  could  it  be  thought  for  an 
instant  that  we  wished  to  calumniate  the  Christian  ethics.  No 
one  disputes  the  truth  of  what  we  are  about  to  say.  Christians 
of  every  sect  and  color  agree,  that  Paul,  the  great  Christian  legis- 
lator and  moralist,  teaches  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
without  works.  But  the  principle  thus  laid  down  appeared  so 
revolting,  so  opposed  to  the  noblest  instincts  of  the  human  heart, 
so  contrary  to  the  sentimental  morality  Christianity  was  preach- 
ing, that  restrictions  were  soon  made  to  narrow  its  scope.  While 
Protestantism,  obeying  logic  and  reason  alone,  drew  boldly  from 
this  principle  all  its  consequences  and  proclaimed  moral  works 
useless  and  pernicious,  faith  alone  being  sufficient  for  salvation  ; 
Catholicism,  on  the  other  hand,  having  an  external  authority, 
social  and  political,  being  itself  at  once  a  government  and  a 
religion,  recoiled  in  terror,  from  these  destructive  consequences, 
from  this  licentious  morality,  and  interpreted  the  "works"  of 
Paul  in  the  most  restricted  sense,  namely  as  the  works  of  the 
Law,  as  the  practice  of  the  Mosaical  code,  and  declared,  against 
the  Protestants  in  the  council  of  Trent,  the  necessity  of  good 
works.  It  was  a  return  to  the  old  Hebrew  ethics,  it  was  a  total 
rejection  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  it  was  a  great  diminution 
of  the  importance,  the  efficacy  of  the  redemption. 

Accordingly,  we  see  the  Protestants  use  towards  the  Catholics 
the  same  language  Paul  used  towards  the  Pharisees  and  Judaizing 
Christians,  and  class  the  Catholics  with  the  Jews.  "  The  Catholic 
doctors,  says  Mosheim,  "confound  the  Law  with  the  Gospel,  and 
represent  everlasting  happiness  as  the  reward  of  good  works.  Is 
it  not  here  lies  the  true  sense,  the  veritable  intention  of  Paul  ?" 
This  is  the  ground  upon  which,  as  we  have  just  said,  the  great 
battle  between  Protestants  and  Catholics  took  place.  The  ethics 
of  Paul  is,  in  our  opinion,  that  indeed  which  reason  and  inde- 
pendent criticism  gave  him  through  the  mouth  of  Protestantism. 
The  arguments  and  verbiage  of  Paul  are  express  thereon.  He 
presents  us,  as  an  example  of  his  theory,  Abraham,  justified  not 
by  works  but  by  faith.*  Now,  the  works  of  Abraham,  which 
"were  not  reckoned  to  him  for  righteousness,"  according  to 
Paul,  were  not,  as  far  as  I  know,  works  of  the  Law,  which  had 
not  as  yet  been  given,  but  truly  moral  works,  in  the  strictest 
sense  ;  charity,  justice,  hospitality,  philanthropy,  teaching, 

*  Bom.  iv.  1,  2,  3, 4. 


16  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

virtue,  monotheism  sown  among  the  Gentiles.  And,  neverthe- 
less, Abraham  was  not  justified  by  his  works,  but  indeed  by  his 
faith.  Could  any  one,  who  referred  only  to  the  works  of  the 
Law,  so  speak  ?  And,  furthermore,  I  affirm,  that  if  the  example 
chosen  by  Paul  be  altogether  conclusive,  the  language  used  and 
the  consequences  drawn  are  altogether  unmistakeable :  "For 
what  saith  the  Scripture?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  Now  to  him  that  work- 
eth  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt."*  Here, 
then,  we  have  all  title  to  recompense,  all  meritorious  works 
declared  null.  This  is  not  all:  "But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his 
faith  is  counted  for  righteousness,  "f  Thus,  no  doubt  is  pos- 
sible— without  works,  and  however  wicked,  one's  faith  alone 
in  him  who  justifies  the  wicked,  saves.  Do  we  want  more? 
Hear  Paul,  in  continuation :  "  Even  as  David  also  describeth  the 
blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God  imputed  RIGHTEOUSNESS 
WIHOUT  WORKS,  saying :  '•Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are 
forgiven  and  whose  sins  are  covered.  He  to  whom  the  Lord  will 
not  impute  sin.1 "  That  is  to  say,  according  to  the  sense  given  by 
Paul  to  these  words  of  David,  the  grace  of  faith  confers  remission 
of  sin,  the  imputation  of  righteousness.  And  in  Romans  (iii.  27), 
"boasting"  is  declared  "excluded,"  not  by  the  "law  of  works," 
but  by  the  "  law  of  faith."  And  so  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  (ii.  16),  he  teaches  that  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of 
the  Law  (without  any  distinction),  but  solely  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  true  that  in  the  third  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  verse 
31,  the  Apostle  declares  that  he  does  not  wish  to  "make  void 
the  law  by  faith,"  but  on  the  contrary,  to  "establish"  it;  and 
that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (ii.  17)  he  exhorts  against 
sinning,  but,  in  the  first  place,  that  was  because  he  imitated  in 
this  respect  the  language  of  the  Master,  who  saw  in  Christianity 
only  whatever  was  spiritual  and  permanent,  real  and  tangible  in 
the  old  law  itself ;  and  in  the  second,  because  he  himself  felt  all 
the  danger  of  his  principles,  foresaw  the  immorality  that  might 
arise  in  the  world  under  the  shield  of  faith  alone  justifying. 
In  fine,  I  affirm,  that  if  he  condemns  sin,  if  he  does  not  want  all 
the  license  consistent  with  faith,  it  is  for  the  sake  of  expediency, 
and  for  a  purely  secondary  consideration.  For,  mark  well,  it  is 
not  in  the  name  of  truth,  justice  or  virtue,  absolutely,  that  Paul 
permits  not  sin  under  the  rule  of  faith,  but  it  is  because  faith* 
fully  equal  to  the  pardon  of  every  crime,  could  not  very  well  be 
made  the  accomplice  and  instrument  of  evil,  nor  "Christ  the 
*  Rom  vi.  C.  t  Bom.  iv.  3-4. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS*  17 

minister  of  sin."  See  to  what  a  point  Christianity  must  descend 
to  find  a  prop  for  its  ethics,  after  having  taken  away  its  old  and 
natural  base,  the  Law  ! 

Would  we  glance  at  the  necessary  and  natural  links  that,  in 
the  minds  of  Christians,  united  good  works  with  the  law-making 
both  solid  and  inseparable.  They  are  that  Paul,  who  wants  faith 
without  works,  is  the  greatest  enemy  to  the  ceremonial  law ;  and 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  James,  perhaps  the  most  conservative 
apostle  and  the  advocate  of  the  necessity  of  works,  is  also  the 
most  favorable  to  the  law. 

This  is  not  the  only  peril  that  Christianity  made  its  ethics 
incur.  Is  there  no  danger  in  this  contempt  for  the  body,  for 
"this  sinful  flesh  that  hampers  us,  and  that  we  should  detest," 
and  in  Christianity's  launching  its  anathemas  against  matter, 
and  making  this  the  object  of  its  rabid  tirades  ?  Are  self-denial, 
martyrdom,  heroism,  the  only  results?  We  admit,  willingly, 
that  contempt  of  the  body,  when  made  a  rule  of  life,  begets 
often  marvellous  virtues,  which  the  world  admires,  and  that  it 
proved  a  powerful  support  against  the  rude  shocks  Christianity 
at  first  encountered.  But  besides  the  world,  there  is  a  power 
called  logic,  which,  sooner  or  later,  draws  from  every  principle 
all  the  conclusions  it  involves.  Xow,  it  can  be  fearlessly  asserted, 
that  from  contempt  of  the  body,  of  the  flesh,  as  it  was  understood 
and  practised  by  Christianity,  must  one  day  come  the  vilest 
materialism,  the  most  unbridled  licentiousness,  the  most  shock- 
ing immorality.  Doubtless,  there  appears  to  be  nothing  so 
paradoxical,  so  incredible  as  the  union  of  contempt  for  the  body 
with  sensuality.  But  logic  and  history  prove  that  this  is  not 
only  possible  but  almost  always  inevitable.  What  does  logic 
teach?  That  one  may  be  a  materialist  and  addicted  to  all  carnal 
excesses  in  two  different  ways.  Matter  may  be  paid  an  ex- 
travagant worship,  be  thought  alone  worthy  of  our  care  and  love, 
be  considered  as  the  whole  of  man,  over  whom  it  should  hold 
despotic  sway,  and  that  no  rein  or  restriction  should  be  put  on  its 
demands.  But  the  materialism  of  which  we  speak  is  of  another 
kind  ;  it  is  when  a  super-refinement  of  spiritualism  cuts  assunder 
the  constituent  parts  of  our  being,  and  by  care  and  effort  detaches 
the  spirit  from  its  earthly  shrine ;  when,  by  dint  of  zeal,  self- 
denial  and  indefatigable  perseverance  it  succeeds  in  isolating  the 
noblest  part  of  our  nature,  in  snapping  all  the  links  that  bind  it 
to  the  body,  and  in  giving  it  an  existence  absolutely  independent 
of  the  necessities  and  reactions  of  the  flesh  ;  when  through  this 
gulf  of  separation  it  succeeds  in  attaining  this  vaunted  apostolic 
liberty,  wherein  the  spirit,  no  longer  bound  to  earth,  soars  to  a 


18  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

sphere  where  the  echo  of  life's  joys  and  woes  do  not-come.  A 
great  proof,  doubtless,  of  the  nobleness  of  our  nature,  but  like- 
wise a  perilous  flight,  a  fatal  separation !  since  the  seductive 
liberty  gained  for  the  spirit  sets  free  also  all  the  vilest  instincts 
of  the  animal.  No  more  influence  now,  it  is  true,  of  the  body 
upon  the  spirit,  but  also  no  more  control  of  the  body  by  the 
soul.  Why  should  it  descend  to  concern  itself  about  a  miserable 
animal?  Why  should  it  dwell  with  a  thing  so  full  of  care, 
turmoil  and  disorder,  to  be  its  governor  and  guide  ?  This  is  how 
an  excessive  contempt  for  the  flesh  ends  in  materialism,  as  we 
have  just  seen  that  the  vilest  materialism  springs  from  too  great 
an  esteem  and  consideration  for  the  flesh.  This  is  the  teaching  of 
logic.  Does  experience  speak  less  loudly?  Does  not  history 
show  us  that  whenever  mysticism  allows  itself  full  rein,  it  is 
inevitably  dragged  into  the  most  monstrous  excesses,  the  most 
ignoble  pleasures,  sometimes  by  the  impetuosity  of  a  body  aban- 
doned to  itself,  and,  what  is  not  a  little  singular,  at  others,  by  a 
sensuality  regulated,  established,  sanctioned  in  advance  by  that 
very  spiritualism  which,  a  little  while  ago,  disdained  to  enjoin 
on  the  body  order,  temperance,  virtue,  duty  ? 

Far  from  us  the  thought  of  renewing  against  Christianity 
the  old  pagan  accusations  !  Far  from  us  the  thought  of  charging 
to  the  evangelical  Christians  those  banquets,  festivals  and  orgies 
that  scandalized  the  decent  folks  of  Paganism  !  We  far  prefer  to 
sav,  with  the  Christian  apologist,  that  it  was  the -Gnostics  solely 
wno  astonished  and  shocked  the  world  by  these  hideous  exhi- 
bitions. Still  the  Gnostics  were  Christians,  wicked  ones,  if  you 
will,  disorderly  and  sensual,  but  accepting  the  dogmas,  principles 
and  preaching  of  Christianity,  though  attaching  themselves 
chiefly  to  Peter  and  Paul,  as  we  shall  show  elsewhere;  and, 
above  all,  the  causes  and  seeds  of  these  strange  abuses  lay  truly 
in  the  Gospels.  Do  they  not  announce  in  every  page  the  con- 
tempt and  condemnation  of  the  flesh  ?  Do  they  not  declare  its 
works  null,  useless  for  salvation,  provided  there  be  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ  ?  Do  they  not  advocate  a  worship  in  spirit  as  the  highest 
degree  of  human  perfection  ?  Do  they  not  propose  to  man,  as  his 
noolest  task  here  below,  the  detachment  of  his  spirit  from  the 
flesh  of  sin,  so  as  to  gain  this  "liberty  of  the  children  of  God," 
procured  by  faith,  and  not  by  works,  the  evidence,  per  contra,  of 
lapse  and  slavery  ?  .And,  to  connect  this  ethical  system  with  its 
speculative  side,  do  they  not  sacrifice  and  fuse  matter,  the  in- 
ferior mother,  to  the  weal  of  mind,  of  the  world  to  come,  of 
idealism,  of  the  superior  mother.  Do  they  not  term  true  Chris- 
tians the  spiritual  9  Now,  if  we  wish  to  know  exactly  what  ia 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  19 

the  spiritual  of  the  apostle  we  have  but  to-view  the-neoplatonism 
of  Plotinus,  Porphery  and  Proclus,  the  Gnostic  system,  and, 
above  both,  the  corresponding  distinctions  of  the  Cabala.  What 
do  the  first  two  establish  on  this  score  ?  They  divide,  as  we 
know,  men  into  three  classes :  the  Hyloists,  (the  lowest  rank) 
that  is  to  say,  the  "carnal"  of  Paul,  who  were,  according  to  the 
Gnostics,  the  Pagans  ;  the  Psychics,  or  Animists,  and  these  were, 
according  to  the  same,  the  Jews  and  the  non-Gnostic  Christians  ; 
last^  the  Pneumatics,  the  spiritual,  and  they  were  exclusively  the 
Gnostics.  Now  we  know  what  was  the  "Pneumatic"  of  the 
Gnostics  :  man,  above  law,  usages,  virtue,  for  whom  all  is  good, 
all  allowable,  since  his  soul,  in  spite  of  any  liberty  the  body  may 
assume,  can  contract,  henceforth,  no  stain,  having  an  existence 
quite  apart  from  the  flesh  that  surrounds  it.  We  do  not  quite 
assert  that  the  spiritualism  of  Paul  was  of  this  kind  ;  or  that  the 
contempt  of  the  body  and  of  its  works  was  pushed  by  him  to  this 
point ;  but  if  he  be  not  the  type  and  model  of  the  system  he  is, 
beyond  question,  its  prime  cause,  and  the  Pneumatic  of  Gnostic- 
ism is,  at  the  very  least,  a  Paulite  in  excess. 

We  have  tried  to  fix  the  meaning  of  Paul's  "spiritual" 
through  its  reflection  in  the  "Pneumatic"  of  the  Gnostics.  We 
may,  with  advantage,  as  a  counter-test,  compare  both  with  their 
type,  Cabalistic  spiritualism.  We  may  boldly  affirm  that  the 
tripple  distinction  of  the  Gnostics,  and  the  spiritual  of  Paul 
become  quite  intelligible  only  by  linking  them  with  the  equi- 
valent Cabalistical  doctrine.  The  Cabalists  say  that  man  has  a 
threefold  nature;  the  breath,  (NEFESCH)  which  has  its  root  in 
the  emanation,  Malkhout  (called  also  Nefesch) ;  the  ROTJACH  or 
soul,  that  is  connected  with  the  logos,  with  the  tiphereth  that 
bears  its  name ;  lastly,  the  NESCHAMA,  that  has  its  source  in 
the  Bina,  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  superior,  like  that  which  is  in  man. 
This  is  not  all ;  the  same  classification  of  men  by  their  predomi- 
nant nature  is  made  by  the  Cabalists  as  by  the  Gnostics.  With 
those,  as  with  these,  the  great  mass  of  the  faithful  attain  only  to 
nefesch,  to  Malkhout,  to  the  hylism  of  the  Neoplatonists  and  the 
Gnostics,  to  the  flesh  of  Paul ;  their  portion  is  the  letter,  the 
bondage  of  the  letter,  as  Paul  says  the  literal  sense  (peschat)  of 
the  Law,  and  they  bear,  like  Paul's  charnels,  the  name  slaves, 
for  the  malkout  itself  is  called  slave,  or  else  they  are  given  the 
title  of  eggs  not  yet  laid  (betsim).  In  this  system,  as  in  the 
other,  we  see  those  to  whom  the  Rouach  has  been  allotted,  who 
have  their  root  in  the  Tiphereth,  the  Logos ;  that  is  to  say  the 
Psychist?,  the  learned,  the  scribes,  the  doctors  of  Paul  and  the 
Gospels,  who  reach  the  legal,  philosophical  and  theoretic  sense  of 


20  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

the  Law,  and  these- are  chickens  scarcely  hatched  (efrochim). 
Lastly,  we  arrive  at  the  elect  souls,  supported  by  Neschama, 
that  is  to  say,  the  Pneumatics  of  the  Gnostics  and  Plotinus,  the 
spiritual  of  Paul,  who  have  their  source  and  seat  in  Bina,  (the 
superior  spirit)  and  to  whom  Cabalistic  science  (sod)  unveils  its 
mysteries ;  these  are  the  free,  for  Bina  is  called  Freedom  (deror, 
cherout) ;  and  far  from  being  slaves,  eggs  or  chickens,  they  are 
the  legitimate  sons,  children  entitled  to  the  patrimony.  See 
how  the  rays,  scattered  everywhere  through  this  work,  converge 
to  this  luminous  point!  The  spirituality  to  which  Christians 
are  invited  is  naturally  linked  to  the  Cabalistic  model  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  Bina ;  both  make  the  same  use  of  the  study  and 
dissemination  of  the  Cabalistic  mysteries,  that  confer  exactly 
the  title  and  rights  of  the  spiritual  (mare  demischmeta).  By  the 
same  system,  for  raising  themselves  to  the  Bina,  they  acquired 
the  title  children,  which,  as  opposed  to  that  of  slaves,  the 
Cabala  used  long  before  Christainity.  They  acquired  at  the  same 
time  the  "  liberty"  proper  to  this  degree,  one  of  its  most  charac- 
teristic designations,  which  the  Cabala  never  used  in  its  practical 
sense,  (unless  as  regards  a  soul  freed  from  the  bonds  of  the  body) 
but  which  Christianity  first,  and  then  the  Gnostics  so  strangely 
abused.  This  last  consideration  leads  us  to  speak  of  another 
cause  still  that  makes  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  ethics 
weak  and  insecure,  that  opens  the  door  to  every  abuse,  and 
though  producing  noble  acts  through  the  ascendancy  of  the  soul 
over  the  body,  also  gives  the  latter  all  the  vices  of  an  ignorant 
and  ungoverned  slavery.  What  we  are  about  to  say  is,  at  first 
sight  so  improbable,  that,  had  we  not  the  proofs  ready,  we  would 
not  dare  state  it.  One  of  the  doctrines  of  Rabbinical  Judaism, 
very  natural,  common  enough  and  almost  useless  to  teach,  was 
one  referring  to  certain  obituary  customs.  Already  had  the 
Bible  and  the  Hebrew  prophets,  highly  prizing  life,  said  in  a 
thousand  places  that  the  law,  virtue,  the  commands  of  God, 
cease  at  the  door  of  the  tomb;  that  the  dead  no  more  praise  the 
Lord  ;  that  the  sepulchre  gives  forth  no  song  of  thanks  ;  passages 
which  have  been  given  in  a  materialistic  sense,  but  which,  for 
orthodox  Judaism,  is  quite  another  thing  as  we  see.  Pharisaism 
forniulizes  them  into  one  general  saying,  the  terms  of  which  are 
of  special  importance  in  order  to  penetrate  the  true  meaning  of 
many  evangelical  passages  and  especially  from  Paul.  The  Phari- 
sees say  :  "With  the  dead  is  liberty  (from  the  Psalms),  when  one 
is  dead  he  is  freed  from  precepts."  It  is  almost  incredible,  but 
this  is  the  sole  pivot  upon  which  the  words  and  thoughts  of  Paul 
incessantly  turn,  in  the  thousand  places  where  he  speaks  of  the 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  21 

liberty"  of  the  dead.  Here  is  the  origin,  the  cause  of  one  of  the 
boldest  fictions  that  ever  emanated  from  the  human  mind — a 
fiction,  the  consequences  of  which  were  incalculable.  Paul  wants 
the  faithful  to  identify  themselves  with  Christ,  to  believe  that 
they  are  his  very  embodiment,  and  that  their  flesh  is  condemned, 
crucified  and  dead  with  him.  By  this  death  which  they  share 
with  him  they  acquire  the  most  precious  freedom,  viz.,  the 
freedom  from  the  law.  Can  the  law  rule  a  dead  body  ?  Can  it 
extend  its  sceptre  beyond  the  tomb  ?  Can  it  exact  from  a  dead 
man  the  practice  of  its  rites  and  ceremonies  ? 

And,  furthermore,  to  touch  on  another  point,  suggested  by  the 
words  of  Paul  himself,  what  is  the  Cabalistic  doctrine  regarding 
original  sin,  spiritual  new-birth?  Is  it  not  the  law  or  death 
which  it  names  as  the  sole  means  of  making  the  ticcoun  or  repa- 
ration for  the  first  sin?  Well,  of  these  two  means,  says  Paul, 
we  have  chosen  the  last.  We  are-dead — dead,  indeed,  with  Jesus  ; 
we  are  in  him  and  he  is  in  us;  he  has  died  for  all;  he  has 
crucified  in  himself  our  flesh  of  sin;  by  dying  on  the  cross  he  has 
fulfilled  for  us  the  whole  Law.  Behold  us,  then,- in  full  life,  come 
into  the  precious  liberty  of  pure- souls,  and  no  one  can  henceforth 
charge  the  dead  with  neglect  of  the  Law.  Have  we  transcended 
the  thoughts  and  expressions  of  Paul  himself?  Then  let  us  cite 
his  words :  "  Our  flesh  is  considered  as  dead  if  Christ  is  in  us.11 
"He  who  is~dead  is  freed  from  sin."  Rom.  vi,  7.  But  what  ia 
much  more  important :  "  Know  ye  not,  brethren,  (for  I  speak  to 
them  who  know  the  Law) — that  is,  to  those  who  were  not  igno- 
rant of  the  Pharisaical  ideas  as  to  the  duration  of  its  observance — 
know  ye  not  that  the  Law  hath  dominion  over  a  man  as  long  as  he 
liveth?"  And  having  exemplified  his  position  by  saying  that  a 
woman  is  free  to  marry  after  her  husband's  death,  he  continues, 
(v.  4) :  "Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become  dead  to  the 
Law,  by  the  body  of  Christ,  that  ye  should  be  married  to  another, 
to  him  who  is  raised  from  the  dead.  For  when  WE  WERE  in  the 
flesh,  the  motions  of  sins,  which  were  by  the  Law,  did  work  in 
our  members.  But  now  we  are  delivered  from  the  Law,  being 
dead(wQ  follow  in  this  place- the  true  translation  of  Diodata)  to 
that  wherein  we  were  held."  Much  more ;  the  sin  of  Adam,  the 
cause  of  the  Law  with  the  Cabalists  and  Paul,  is  expiated  by  the 
death  of  Jesus ;  he  dies,  is  buried,  and  his  disciples  are  likewise 
with  him.  Our  flesh  has  been  condemned  to  suffer  for  all  in 
Jesus.  There  is  then  no  more  condemnation  for  those  who  are  in 
Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit.  *  *  * 
For  what  was  impossible  to  the  Law  (to  give  perfect  liberty  in 
atoning  for  even  original  sin)  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the 


22  JEWISH  AND  CHBISTIAN  ETHICS. 

flesh,  God,  sending  hisown  son  in  the  likeness-of  sinful  fleshrand 
for  sin  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  in  order  that  the  righteousness 
of  the  Law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us.  (Rom.  viii,  1-4) 

We  shall  not  multiply  citations.  A  simple  reading  of  Paul's 
writings  will  show  their  spirit  much  better  than  detached  frag- 
ments. What  they  clearly  testify  is  the  strange  abuse  that  is 
made  of  a  simple  fiction,  and  the  consequence  drawn  from  it  with 
incredible  coolness,  viz. :  the  abolition  of  the  Law.  But  in  this 
tomb  of  the  Law — in  this  inaction  of  the  dead,  shall  not  morality 
itself  be  annihilated  ?  Have  we  not  to  fear  that  this  defunct  will 
free  himself  from  virtue,  from  moral  obligations,  as  well  as  from 
ceremonial  injunctions?  And  is  there,  moreover,  no  danger  that 
those  members,  said  to  be  dead,  should  refuse  to  perform  the  most 
holy  duties,  or  that  the  spirit,  having  attained  its  natural  free- 
dom, should  think  itself  no  longer  obliged  to  lay  any  restraint  on 
the  flesh  which  surrounds  it,  but  which  is  already  dead  and 
crucified  in  Jesus  ? 

But  the  fiction  continues :  These  faithful,  dead  and  buried 
with  Jesus,  rise  with  him ;  our  flesh,  too,  is  considered  as 
risen  with  Jesus.  We  are  dead  to  the  Law  that  we  may 
belong  to  another,  viz.,  to  him  who  is  risen  from  the  dead ; 
and  Jesus,  our  brother,  is  the  first  born  from  the  dead.  No 
doubt  possible.  For  Jesus,  and,  after  him,  for  his  disciples,  the 
era  of  the  resurrection,  the  renewing  of  nature,  the  resurrection 
of  bodies  was  about  to  commence ;  and  for  the  successors  of 
Jesus,  it  had  already  come  in  his  own  person,  in  his  body  gone 
living  from  the  tomb  and  become  the  first-born  of  the  dead. 
But  what  gives  this  fiction  quite  an  exceptional  importance  is 
the  sense  it  took  from  its  contact  with  the  doctrines  of  the  day. 
What  did  the  Pharisees  understand  by  the  resurrection  ?  Beyond 
doubt  it  took  in  not  only  human  bodies  called  to  a  new  life, 
furnished  with  superior  organs  and  powers,  but  also  the  whole  of 
nature  in  a  general  renovation,  in  a  new  birth  that  was  to  change 
the  aspect  of  nature  ;  and  it  would  be,  doubtless,  both  a  curious 
and  instructive  study  to  compare  this  doctrine  with  its  ancient 
or  modern  imitations.  The  Pharisaic  school,  in  accord  on  this 
point,  differed  as  to  the  time  of  the  general  resurrection,  and  as  to 
its  connexion  with  the  Messianic  era.  One  party  made  these  two 
eras  absolutely  contemporaneous,  and  not  only  was  the  Messiah  to 
usher  Israel  into  an  era  of  prosperity,  safety  and  liberty,  but  also 
to  give  the  signal  for  the  renovation  and  rebirth  of  nature,  of 
which  the  most  solemn  and  striking  event  would  naturally  be  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  other  party  viewed  things  in  quite 
a  different  light.  Placing  the  resurrectional  era  at  the  remotest 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN 

possible  period,  they  regarded  the  coming  of 

a  simple  social  change,  wherein  the  laws  of  natiii 

the  same,  and  things  go  on  as  usual ;  or,  to  sum 

an  adage,  Nothing  be  changed  except  slavery  to  liberty.     We  need 

not  say  to  which  of  these  schools  Christianity  belonged.     For  it 

no  interval,  no  possible  distinction  between  the  Messianical  and  the 

resurrectional  era ;  and  though  the  contrary  doctrine  conclusively 

prevailed  in  Judaism,  the  sychronism  of  the  two  eras  alone  found 

favor  with  Christianity. 

From  this  first  difference  arose  another.  Although  the 
Pharisees  protracted  as  much  as  possible  the  reign  of  the  Law, 
yet  they  made  it  cease  at  the  threshold  of  the  resurrection.  As 
the  material  world  was  to  undergo  a  complete  change,  so  a  new 
law,  springing  from  new  social  conditions,  was  to  supplant  the 
old  religion.  On  that  new  earth,  in  the  midst  of  new  beings  and 
new  conditions,  the  thought  of  God,  the  law  of  God,  self-sufficing 
and  naturally  self-conserving,  would  change  in  its  applications  as 
it  changes  even  here  below,  according  to  circumstances,  to  bodies, 
to  relations,  as  it  is  applied  to  world,  sun  or  star.  Here  is  the 
origin  and  true  sense  of  this  mass  of  sentences,  propositions, 
similitudes,  in  which  the  idea  of  a  new  law,  a  new  covenant,  and 
annulled  prohibitions  shines  through  images  and  allegories  that 
have  been  so  often  used  pervertedly  against  Jewish  orthodoxy, 
and  that  Christian  polemics  has  incessantly  thrown  in  the  face  of 
the  rabbis.  These  were  the  very  ideas  that  prevailed  among  the 
Judao-Christians  at  the  abolition  of  the  Law,  just  as  in  general 
all  that  subsequently  became  a  weapon  in  the  hands  of  established 
Christianity,  had  been  once  an  originating  power,  a  cause  in 
primitive  Christianity.  Nothing  easier,  nothing  more  inevitable 
after  what  we  have  said,  than  the  abolition  of  the  Law.  The  era 
of  the  Messiah  being  identified  completely  in  the  minds  of  the 
primitive  Christians  with  that  of  the  resurrection  (this  having 
already  commenced  with  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  the  first-born 
of  the  dead),  and  the  whole  church,  deeming  the  destruction  and 
renovation  of  the  world  imminent,  the  first  conclusion  was  that 
the  law  of  Moses  was  about  to  be  superseded  by  another  law  more 
in  unison  with  the  semi-spiritual  state  of  the  new  society.  In 
vain  was  this  expectation  disappointed  from  day  to  day  ;  in  vain 
did  the  resurrection  proper  keep  ever  retreating  towards  the  future, 
and  in  vain  were  people  already,  as  we  learn  from  the  Epistles, 
devoured  by  impatience.  Never  mind ;  its  shade,  its  image,  a 
resurrection  quite  fictitious  can  always  be  substituted  for  the  real 
resurrection  ;  it  can  be  taught,  that  the  faithful,  dead  with  Jesus, 
are  raised  with  him ;  that  the  reign  of  the  resurrection,  of  the 


24  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS- 

new  birth  commenced  with  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  thus 
the  abolition  of  the  Law  <?an  always  progress. 

We  need  not  dwell  at  length  on  the  peril  in  which  ethics, 
religion  and  practical  morality  were  placed  by  such  a  system. 
This  equivocal  position  created  by  Christianity  in  the  actual  order 
of  things  ;  this  society,  which  is  no  longer  the  human  society  that 
the  actual  laws  would  have,  nor  yet  the  society  of  the  resurrection, 
such  as  it  will  be  one  day ;  this  systematized  contradiction  between 
existence  as  it  should  be  and  existence  as  it  was,  between  the 
resurrection  as  a  hypothesis  and  life  as  a  thesis ;  this  fiction  of 
daily  and  hourly  recurrence — was  it  calculated  to  strengthen 
sceptical  minds,  wavering  wills,  or  those  of  selfish  passions,  in 
the  worship  and  love  of  the  good?  All  relations  about  to  cease, 
all  ties  to  be  broken,  society  to  disappear,  and  this  ephemeral 
life  to  have,  perhaps,  no  morrow;  all  affections,  wants,  tears, 
rights,  duties,  the  living,  throbbing  reality  of  life  sacrificed  to  an 
abstraction,  to  a  chimera,  to  a  rabbinical  subtlety  of  Saul's — is 
such  a  system-calculated  to  win  people  inevitably  to  the  perform- 
ance of  duty,  to  a  respect  for  all  rights,  to  a  veneration  for  the 
affections  ?  But  these  loves,  rights,  duties  are  nothing  now  in  the 
rights  acquired  by  the  resurrection,  nothing  but  an  empty  name, 
an  appearance  that  shall  soon  dissolve  to  smoke.  So  that  here,  as 
elsewhere,  morality  shares  the  fate  of  the  law ;  and,  if  new  legal 
relations  are  about  to  be  established  in  the  new  society — for, 
according  to  Jesus  himself,  in  the  new  world  are  to  be  no  more 
marriages — new  moral  relations  must  be  thenceforth  the  guide  of 
our  conduct.  But  the  abolition  of  the  law,  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus — the  causes,  as  we  have  just  seen,  of  doubt  and 
weakness  in  the  Christian  ethics — themselves  contain  what 
compromises,  no  less-seriously,  morality.  This  is  the  Redemption. 
Now,  the  idea  of  a  redemption  lessens  in  many  ways  at  once  the 
value,  beauty  and  grandeur  of  morality.  What  is  the  Redemp- 
tion, and  what  does  it  suppose?  It  supposes  a  state  of  innocence 
anterior  to  sin,  and  wherein  the  redemption  by  the  blood  of  the 
lamb  can  replace  man ;  it  supposes  sin  itself,  and  the  expiatory 
sacrifice  of  the  God-Messiah.  Let  us  see  the  share,  good  or  bad, 
that  these  three  elements  have  in  the  formation  of  the  Christian 
ethics.  Is  this  restoration  to  a  state-of  innocence,  to  Adam's  state 
before  sin,  unattended  by  danger?  Judaism  also  proposed  to  its 
adherents  a  means  of  regaining  the  privileges  lost  by  the  first 
transgression.  It  also  had  an  Incarnate  Word  to  work  this 
miracle ;  but  this  word  was  the  thought  of  God  embodied  in  the 
Law,  maintaining  itself  from  age  to  age,  reinstating  man,  his 
actions  and  his  life,  and  through  him  the  whoJp  Creation.  But 


JEWISH  AND  CHPJSTIAN  ETHICS.  25 

the  last  act  of  this  great  drama,  the  return  to  Adam's  condition, 
to  paradise,  took  place  at  the  era  of  the  resurrection,  when  men, 
improved  by  the  regenerating  works  of  the  Law,  by  the  trials  of 
life,  by  the  slow  and  progressive  initiation  of  actual  existence, 
should  assume  bodies  like  Adam's  before  his  sin.  Until  then  the 
regeneration  is  not  complete,  sin  has  not  abandoned  his  prey; 
the  chain  by  which  it  holds  us  falls  off  indeed,  link  by  link,  but 
the  last  link  is  broken  only  by  the  tomb.  Must  Christianity  wait 
so  long  ?  No ;  doubtless,  for  to  it  the  door  of  the  resurrection  lies 
already  open ;  this  state  we  have  reached ;  in  this  we  live,  if  it  be 
true  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  of  the  just  at  the  time  of 
his  death,  are  the  first  fruits  of  the  general  resurrection,  and  he 
the  first  born  of  the  dead.  Innocent  as  Adam,  ignorant  as  he, 
because  the  fatal  fruit  is  considered  as  never  having  been  eaten, 
subjected  not  to  the  real  laws  that  rule  the  present  physical  world, 
but  to  those  of  the  sinless  world,  to  those  that  shall  rule  it  after 
the  resurrection,  to  fictitious  laws,  to  an  imaginary  world,  to  this 
resurrection  that  ought  to  be  inaugurated  by  Jesus,  how  should 
we  be  less  free,  less  capable  of  sin  and  evil  than  Adam  himself, 
had  he  never  tasted  the  forbidden  fruit  ? 

We  understand  very  well  the  difficulty  that  a  modern  will 
have  in  admitting  these  conclusions.  We  admit  that  the  religious 
instinct,  the  pure  morals,  the  sacred  traditions  which  Christianity 
drew  from  the  Synagogue,  fought  effectually  against  the  power  of 
logic,  against  the  enticement  to  the  licentiousness  which  these 
doctrines  authorized.  But  radical  vice  is  no  less  visible  in  the 
principles ;  and  their  fruits — bitter  enough — soon  showed  them- 
selves in  those  Adamites  of  the  first  and  twelfth  centuries,  in  the 
Turlupines  of  the  fourteenth,  in  the  Picards  of  the  fifteenth 
century; — all  of  whom  took  their  starting-point  from  the 
principles  which  we  denounce. 

Let  us  now  see  the  effects  of  original  sin  (as  understood  by 
Christianity),  especially  in  its  relations  to  the  Law.  We  can 
scarce  credit  our  senses,  as  we  see  the  great  difficulties  of  his 
position,  the  contest  with  orthodox  Judaism,  the  hatred  and  sworn 
destruction  to  the  law  of  Moses,  drive  Paul  to  those  straits  in 
which  morality,  that  plank  of  the  wreck  he  wished  to  save,  must 
be  lost.  Paul  has  a  theory  which  Georgias,  Hobbes,  or  the 
deceased  Proudhon,  the  inventor  of  anarchy,  would  not  have 
disowned,  and  which,  once  admitted,  would  be  the  coup  de  grace 
to  all  justice,  all  law,  all  morality,  all  society — namely,  that  not 
only  is  the  Law  a  result  of  the  first  sin,  but  that  it  constitutes  and 
is  the  cause  of  our  sins — that  without  the  Law  there  is  no  sin,  and 
that  consequently  you  have  but  to  suppress  the  Law  to  make  sin 


26  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

disappear.  Nothing  can  be  more-exact  than  the  statement :  It  is 
through  the  Law  that  we  know  sin.*  The  Law  worketh  wrath  ; 
for  where  there  is  no  Law  there  is  no  transgression. f  By  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world  (speaking  to  those  who  wished  to  liuiit 
the  sense  of  the  word  sin  to  transgressions  against  the  Mosaic 
Law) ;  for,  until  the  Law,  sin  was  in  the  word ;  but  sin  is  not 
imputed  where  there  is  no  law.J  And  further  on:  u For  as  by 
one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners  (probably  in 
allsorts  of  sin)  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 
righteous  "  (probably,  also,  in  all  sorts  of  righteousness,  moral  and 
Mosaic).  Moreover ,  the  Law  entered,  that  offense  might  abound.^ 
This  is  enough,  but  it  is  not  all :  Wlien  we  were  in  the  flesh  (we 
are  at  present  in  spiritual  life,  under  the  law  of  the-spirit  and  not 
of  the  letter),  the  motions  of  sins,  which  were  by  the  Law 
(meaning  sinful  affections)  did  work  in  our  members  to  bring 
forth  fruit  unto  death.  "But  now  we  are  delivered  from  the  Law, 
being  dead  to  that  wherein  we  were  held;  that  we  should-serve 
in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."  |  Can 
we  still  doubt  that  the  moral  laws  as  well  as  the  ceremonial  were 
included  in  these  singular  theories  ?  Let  us  say  so  if  we  can  ? 
The  Law  is  not  given  for  the  just,  but  for  sinners,  and  for  those 
who  cannot  be  classified,  for  people  without  religion,  1st  and 
2d  commandment;  for  the  profane,  3d  commandment;  for 
murderers  of  parents,  5th  commandment;  for  homicides,  6th 
commandment;  for  fornicators,  7th  commandment;  for  men- 
stealers,  8th  commandment,  (as  understood  by  the  Pharisees, 
showing  what  studies  and  influences  inspired  the  apostle) ;  for 
liars,  9th  commandment ;  and  for  perjurers,  10th  commandment. 
But  this  is  nothing  to  what  follows :  "What  shall  we  say  then? 
Is  the  Law  sin  ?  God  forbid.  Nay,  I  HAD  NOT  KNOWN  SIN  BUT 
BY  THE  LAW;  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  Law  had 
said:  'Thou  shalt  not  covet.'  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the 
commandment,  wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence.  For 
without  the  Law  sin  was  dead.  For  I  was  once  alive  without  the 
Law,  but  when  the  commandment  came  sin  revived,  and  I  died."^f 
Do  we  wish  language  still  more  exact  and  serious  ?  u  The  sting  of 
death  is  sin,  and  the  strength  of  sin  is  the  Law."**  Much  more  ; 
the  ministration  of  the  Law  is  a  ministration  of  condemnation,  ft 
And  as  the  corollary  to  all  these  axioms  :  "There  is  therefore  no 
longer  any  condemnation  for  those  who  are  in  Christ-Jesus,  who 
walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit."  See  what  is  asserted. 

*  Bom.  iii.  20.  t  iv.  15.  J  v.  12-131 

.  v.  19  20.  U  vii.  6-6.  T  Bom.  vii.  7-9, 

**  1  Cor.  xv.  56.  ft  11  Cor.  iii.  9. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  27 

The  only  sign  by  which  we  recognize^n  is  by  the  prohibition,  and 
the  sole  distinctive  characteristic  of  evil  is  its  condemnation.  It  is 
the  Law  that  originates  at  its  pleasure  good  or  evil,  and  we  have  but 
to  change,  to  abolish  the  Law  that  all  sin  may  likewise  disappear. 

Nevertheless,  certain  as  we  are  that  such  is  the  meaning  of 
Paul's  language,  and  that  these  principles  lead  directly  to  the 
subversion  of  the  simplest  principles  of  right  and  wrong,  we  must 
not  withhold  our  conviction  that  Paul's  brain  and  heart  revolted 
against  the  possible  deductions  ;  and  one  of  the  best  proofs  of  our 
correctness  is  to  see  Paul  himself  guarding  against  the  possible 
application  of  his  teachings,  so  apt  to  let  loose  upon  the  world  the 
most  dreadful  vices  and  abuses.  "What,  then  ?"  he  cries,  "shall 
we  sin  because  we  are  not  under  the  Law,  but  under  grace?"* 
This  was  the  time  to  escape  at  once,  or  never,  from  this  fatal 
consequence,  by  loudly  proclaiming  that  distinction  which  some 
theologians  have  infelicitously  established  in  the  Law  itself, 
between  the  ceremonial  laws  which  Paul  wished  to  abolish,  and 
the  moral  laws  which  he  wished  to  preserve. 

Why  then  did  he,  too,  not  use  it  ?  Why,  if  he  admitted  it, 
did  he  not  seize  upon  this  distinction  so  simple,  natural  and 
convenient  to  free  himself  from  the  difficulty  ?  Paul,  however, 
does  not  seem  even  to  dream  of  this.  He  prefers  to  entangle 
himself  in  a  labyrinth  of — we  shall  not  say  sophisms — but 
dialectical  subtleties  and  syllogisms,  quite  Talmudical,  difficult 
to  follow,  of  which  the  most  probable  conclusion,  arrived  at  with 
slow,  uncertain  and  embarrassed  steps,  is  this:  That  the  new 
state  being  a  servitude  to  Justice  or  to  God,  instead  of  the  old 
one  which  was  a  servitude  to  sin,  the  deliverance  from  the  latter 
does  not  dispense  us  from  paying  due  homage  to  the  former,  that 
is,  from  conforming  to  the  divine  will,  by  which  alone  we  are  freed 
from  the  yoke  of  the  Law.  Here  is  a  rather  obscure  word-battle ; 
but  it  is  not  our  fault,  nor  even  Paul's  ;  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  to 
his  credit,  for  by  it  alone  can  he  escape  the  frightful  consequences 
which  his  principles,  rigorously  used,  could  not  fail  to  bear. 

In  short,  if  the  innocence  and  sin  which  the  redemption  sup- 
poses are  little  favorable  to  Christian  ethics,  shall  the  redemption 
itself  be  more  so, — the  redemption  or  the  sacrifice  of  a  God-man, 
this  remedy  applied  to  the  old  sore  of  humanity  ? 

Judaism,  too,  as  we  have  said,  recognizes  a  Word  (Tipheret, 
Logos) ;  it  styles  it,  additionally,  the  Law,  Torah  ;  it  believes  in 
its  incarnation  in  the  Malkhout,  the  Torah  schebealpe,  tradition; 
and  the  office  of  this  Word  or  Torah,  descended  to  us,  the  guide 
of  our  thoughts  and  actions,  is  to  efface  gradually  the  marks  of 


28  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

the  old  slavery,  to  atone  for  the  sin  of  the  first  man.  But  how 
does  the  redemption  work  in  Judaism  ?  By  making  of  man 
himself;  of  his  conscience;  soul,  and  will,  the  first,  chief,  and — I 
had  almost  said — the  only  means  of  his  renovation,  in  summoning 
him  to  open  his  mind  and  heart  to  the  teachings,  exhortations, 
light  and  warmth  emanating  from  the  divine  word,  so  that  the 
whole  inner  man  be  transformed,  his  strength  aroused,  his  powers 
expanded,  and  he  himself  alone  brought  to  work,  under  the  eye 
and  hand  of  God,  for  his  own  salvation.  In  short,  the  redemption 
of  Judaism  is  altogether  from  within,  because  its  Word  is  so  too, 
because  its  dogma,  ethics  and  worship  have  no  reality  or  sphere 
here  below,  except  so  far  as  man  seizes,  assimilates  and  realizes 
in  himself  the  perfections  they  contain.  Without  this  assimila- 
tion of  the  Divine  Word,  this  all-penetrating  bread,  this  perpetual 
SUPPER  where  the  incarnate  Word  for  ever  supplies  the  table  of 
Judaism,  what  would  be  this  Word  itself  ?  Nothing  but  a  guest, 
a  divine  one  indeed,  but  one  which  thro'  lack  of  entertainment 
could  not  bring  to  our  spiritual  hearths  those  treasures  of  blessing 
with  which  it  is  laden.  One  cannot,  then,  but  perceive  how 
eminently  favorable  are  Jewish  doctrine,  its  incarnate  Word  and 
Redemption  to  man's  dignity  which  they  raise,  to  his  moral 
energy  which  they  arouse,  to  his  interior  transformation — alone 
reliable,  because  it  is  his  own  work — to  his  true  justification,  the 
fruit  of  a  slow,  inward  labor,  that  leaves  no  dark  corner  of  the 
mind  or  conscience  impenetrated  by  the  divine  light !  Is  it  thus 
with  Christianity  ?  Its  Word,  its  Redemption,  its  action  upon 
the  human  soul,  are,  undeniably,  all  exterior,  all  objective ;  they 
operate  outside  of  man,  without  his  taking  any  part  whatever, 
except  an  act  of  faith  in  the  virtue  and  efficacy  of  Jesus'  sacrifice, 
according  to  some,  or  at  most  (according  to  others)  an  act  of 
general  faith  in  Jesus,  his  mission,  commands,  and  promises. 
The  merits  that  justify,  that  procure  pardon,  are  ever  those  of 
another,  namely,  of  Jesus.  Never  does  man  himself  conquer 
them  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow ;  they  are  imputed  to  him.  Ever 
will  remain  this  vast  difference  between  Christianity  and  Juda- 
ism, viz  :  that  the  Redemption  of  the  latter  is  altogether  interior ; 
that  its  Passion,  Condemnation,  Death,  Garden  of  Olives,  Praetor 
and  Golgotha,  are  internal  facts,  the  sphere  of  all  being  the  mind 
and  heart  of  man,  where  the  Word  is  ceaselessly  sacrificed  for 
the  benefit  of  humanity,  upon  the  altar  that  man  erects. 

The  foundations,  then,  as  we  see,  upon  which  Christianity 
rests,  far  from  having  that  solidity  which  the  beauty  of  the 
structure  seems  to  promise,  are,  on  the  contrary,  fraught  with 
dangers,  that  a  rigid  logic  could  not  fail  to  show* 


JEWISH  AND-CHBISTIAN  ETHICS.  29 

CHAPTER  in. 

HISTORICAL    RESULTS. 

SCAJTDALS  n?  THE   CHURCH  —  EMBARRASSMENT  OF  THE  APOSTLES  —  THE  NlCOLATTM  —  TH* 

PKOPHZTESS  OP  THYATIRA— THE  SIMONIANS— OTHER  GNOSTIC  SECTS— SECTS  OF  THX 
MIDDLE  AGES  —  PRINCIPLES  or  GNOSTIC  IMMORALITY;  INFEEF.NTLVL  THEORY  — 
JUDAISM  KNOWS  NOTHING  SIMILAR  —  SOLITARY  EXCEPTION  CONFIRMATORY  OF  OUB 
SYSTEM — PROTESTANTISM  AND  ITS  ETHICAL  SYSTEMS — QUIETISM, 

."VVe  have  hitherto  studied  but  the  speculative  side  of  Christian 
ethics,  its  roots  in  dogma,  and  the  influence  that  the  latter  can 
and  must  exert  upon  morals.  We  have  strictly  confined  ourselves 
to  the  circle  of  ideas,  avoiding  all  proof  a  posteriori,  only  that  we 
may  proceed  orderly  in  our  exposition.  In  confining  ourselves 
to  the  region  of  abstractions,  perhaps  we  may  have  appeared 
desirous  of  avoiding  realities  that  could  falsify  our  conclusions, 
and  of  giving  ourselves  free  rein  in  endless  reasoning,  without  ever 
appealing  to  the  test  of  experience.  But  this  would  be  a  great 
mistake.  Far  from  avoiding  reality  and  experience,  or  rejecting 
all  proof  a  posteriori,  we  have  deferred  them  only  to  give  them 
a  larger  and  more  suitable  place.  The  principles  already  men- 
tioned, the  defects  already  discovered,  the  germs  of  weakness, 
degeneracy  and  corruption,  we  are  about  to  see  in  the  external 
world,  exerting  their  influence,  developing  their  inherent  baneful 
powers,  and  spreading  their  deadly  branches  and  leaves  over  a 
section  of  mankind.  We  are  about  to  view  hideous  displays,  to 
see  repulsive  theories,  distorted  doctrines  and  unparalleled  views, 
shelter  themselves  under  the  principles  of  Christianity,  and  cover 
its  trunk  with  a  rank  vegetation, — quickly  lopped  down,  it  is 
true,  by  the  authority  of  the  Chuich,  but  which  does  not  fail  to 
prove,  on  the  one  hand,  that  we  were  right  in  our  perception  of 
this  fatal  germ  in  Christian  doctrine,  and  to  show,  on  the  other, 
the  veritable  historical  evil  it  produced  in  the  world. 

We  have  indicated  several  causes  of  degeneracy  in  the  Chris- 
tian ethics :  the  abolition  of  the  Law,  the  fiction  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  the  faithful  with  Jesus,  the  state  of  innocence  to 
which  we  are  restored  by  the  virtue  of  Jesus,  the  theory  of  the 
Law  begetting  sin,  and  the  externality  of  the  redemption  and 
atonement.  We  are  about  to  see  these  causes  successively  beget 
some  one  of  those  monstrous  doctrines  that  stain  the  history  of 
Christianity,  and  have  no  possible  parallel  in  the  history  of  the 
Synagogue,  just  because  they  were  unknown  in  Judaism.  And 
the  very  language  of  the  sects  themselves  will  show  unequivocally 
the  logical  connection  of  effect  with  cause,  which  we  have  assigned. 


30  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

No  more  precipitate  blossoming  can  be  imagined.  As  early 
as  the  Apostolic  times  even,  the  seeds  sown  in  Christian  soil  puts 
forth  its  foul,  dark-hued  buds.  Though  it  produced  at  that  time 
excessive  vices,  crimes  and  disorders,  this,  still,  would  not  be  so 
bad,  nor  prove,  withal,  the  truth  of  our  deductions,  if  those  vices 
and  excesses  were  not,  thenceforth  systematized  and  did  not  get 
a  scientific  precision,  a  theory,  a  justification,  I  was  about  to  say, 
a  formal  consecration.  What  constitutes  their  importance  and 
what  unfortunately  makes  us  right  on  all  points  is,  that  those 
vices  did  not  hide  themselves,  were  not  ashamed,  that  they 
boldly  established  themselves  in  the  Church,  that  they  shame- 
lessly displayed  their  deformity  in  open  day,  and  that  they 
deemed  themselves  justified  by  Christian  dogma  and  ethics. 
This  is  what  cannot  be  disputed  and  what  constitutes  for  us  the 
vital  point  of  the  question.  We  are  hardly  surprised,  much  less 
scandalized,  to  hear  from  the  mouth  of  the  Apostle  that  there 
were  in  the  Church  fornicators,  idolaters,  adulteresses,  effem- 
inate persons,  sinners  against  nature,  thieves,  covetous  people, 
drunkards,  extortioners;*  that  there  were  among  the  Christians 
impurities  unknown  to  the  Gentiles;  that  a  Christian  cohabited 
with  his  father's  wife  :  all  this,  unhappily,  is  in  so  much  accord 
with  human  nature  that  Christianity  cannot,  without  flagrant 
injustice,  be  held  responsible.  But  the  motive,  pretext  and 
occasion  of  this  revolting  picture  are  exclusively  its  own.  Is  it 
not  manifest  from  the  words  of  the  Apostle  that  Christian  liberty 
created  those  libertines  and  criminals  ?  Did  they  not  entrench 
themselves  behind  the  abolition  of  the  Law  ?  Did  they  not  avail 
themselves  of  Paul's  allowing  every  enjoyment  forbidden  by 
Judaism  ?  And  see  the  Apostle  surprised,  disconcerted,  fighting 
painfully  in  this  unexpected  embarrassment  created  by  himself ! 
He  defends  and  protects  himself  as  well  as  he  can ;  he  tries  to 
deaden  the  blow  about  to  be  given  him  with  his  own  weapons  : 
11  All  things,"  says  he,  "are  lawful  for  me," — here,  then,  are  the 
words  with  which  this  rabble  wallowed  in  the  mire  of  every  sin 
—  but  all  things  ARE  NOT  EXPEDIENT  :  all  things  are  lawful  for 
me  —  repeating  this  infelicitous  and  immoral  phrase  to  abate  its 
force — "  but  Twill  not  be  brought  under  the  power  of  any.  Meats 
for  the  belly  and  the  belly  for  meats,  but  God  shall  destroy  both 
it  and  them.  Now  the  body  is  not  for  fornication,  but  for  the 
Lord,  and  the  Lord  for  the  body."  f  Vain  efforts  !  Impotent 
dialectics  !  Miserable  subterfuges,  too  late  opposed  to  the  cry  of 
liberty  raised  against  the  Law  —  the  law  that  sanctioned  and 
protected  its  ceremonials,  no  less  than  its  ethics  !  Useless  pro- 
*  Cor.  v.  10, 11,  and  vi.  10.  t  Cor.  vi.  12, 13. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  31 

testation  against  the  vices  and  passions  that,  chained  up  before 
by  the  Law  in  the  depths  of  the  human  heart,  rise  in  their  turn, 
break  their  fetters-and  shout  liberty  !  A  glance  suffices  to  detect 
all  that  is  false,  embarrassing  and  illogical  in  this  desperate 
defence  of  Paul's.  He  dares  not  retract  the  false  words,  "All 
things  are  lawful  for  me.11  He  has  repeated  them  too  often,  and 
they  are  too  deeply  sunk  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful  for  any 
human  power  to  uproot :  so  he  does  not  attempt  it  even ;  he 
can  apply  only  palliatives.  And  what  palliatives  !  "All  things 
are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  things  are  not' expedient.  What  an 
avowal  !  what  a  degradation  !  what  a  fall  !  He  dares  not  speak 
of  virtue,  duty,  morality  in  the  abstract,  to  these  deluded,  brutal- 
ized multitudes,  he  speaks  to  them  of  expediency;  he  does  not 
dispute  that  all  is  lawful,  he  denies  only  that  all  is  convenient, 
and  that  man,  henceforth  master  of  his  actions,  should  make  full 
use  of  a  boundless  liberty. 

If  this  expediency  were,  at  least,  dictated  by  reasonable 
motives  !  Paul  tries  to  assign  them.  He  imagines  a  plausible 
distinction  between  the  dietary  laws  and  the  moral.  Meats  are 
for  the  stomach^  and  the  stomach  for  meatSj  but  God  shall  destroy 
both.  But  the  body  in  not  for  fornication,  but  for  the  Lord.  Not 
one,  I  dare  say,  of  those  great  sinners  who  could  not  demolish, 
with  one  stroke,  Paul's  reasoning,  by  telling  him  that  if  meats 
are  made  for  the  stomach,  pleasures  are  likewise  for  the  body  ; 
that  if  God  must  destroy  stomach  and  meats,  so  must  He  the 
hand  extended  for  theft,  the  arm  for  homicide,  the  senses  clogged 
from  gluttony,  drunkeness,  and  licentiousness  ;  that  if  the  body 
is  made  for  the  Lord,  it  is  worth  something  probably — the  care  of 
God  for  instance  ; — that  He  is  not  indifferent  to  its  concerns,  and 
that  it  is  not  true  that  whatever  goes  into  the  mouth  does  not 
defile  it,  as  do  theft  and  adultery.  Is  it  desirable  to  look  further 
still  into  the  meaning  of  this  expediency,  that  is,  henceforth,  to 
constitute  Paul's  sole  safety-plank  from  the  general  wreck  ?  Or 
to  see  if  we  have  calumniated  the  Apostle  ?  Speaking  of  meats 
sacrificed  to  idols  and  eaten  by  many  of  the  faithful, — from 
which  Paul  exhorts  abstinence  in  order  to  avoid  scandal, — he  uses 
again  his  grand  phrase,  "  All  is  lawful  for  me,  but  all  is  not  ex- 
pedient ;  all  things  are  allowed  me,  but  all  things  do  not  edify" 
(1  Cor.  x.,  23).  This  additional  light  upon  the  value  of  the  term, 
expediency,  shows  how  exactly  correct  is -our  explanation.  It  is 
not  as  yet  a  heresy  that  has  a  name,  a  standard,  a  history, 
though  it  is  truly  the  germ  of  a  heresy.  The  first  historical  one 
that  truly  bears  this  name,  the  oldest  example  of  human  reason 
left  to  itself  in  the  heart-centre  of  Christianity,  is  a  grand  out- 


32  JEWISH  AND  CHBISTIAN  ETHICS. 

burst  against  morality.  No  older  sect  is  known  than  the  Nicola- 
ites  of  whom  the  Apocalypse  speaks  (ii.,  15)  as  a  heresy  whose 
doctrines  were  already  notorious  and  wide  spread.  No  obscure 
person  was  this  Nicolas,  the  founder  of  a  sect,  one  of  the  seven 
deacons  of  the  Church.  A  spectacle  not  a  little  instructive  is  that 
of  the  Nicolaites,  who,  at  the  cradle  almost  of  Christianity,  made 
every  sort  of  licentiousness  and  immorality  their  rule  of  life  ,' 
who,  the  better  to  escape  the  slavery  of  the  senses,  and  not  waste 
the  freedom  of  the  soul  in  constant  tiresome  struggles,  desired  to 
exhaust  the  flesh  by  complying  with  all  its  desires.  Is  not  this 
Paul's  principle,  pushed  to  the  furthest  limits?  Is  not  this  the 
natural  fruit  of  a  contempt  and  degradation  of  the  flesh  ? 

Without  leaving  the  evangelical  era  and  sphere,  we  meet, 
furthermore,  prophetesses  who  rivaled  in  immorality  the  deacon 
Nicolas.  That  old  Jew,  that  noble  and  pure  spirit  John,  the  well- 
beloved  disciple  of  Jesus,  is  stirred  with  a  holy  zeal  against  the 
town  that  welcomed  him  and  against  the  bishop  who  allowed  the 
predictions  of  the  prophetess  :  "Angel  of  the  Church  at  Thyatira, 
writes  he,  .  .  .  .  I  have  something  against  thee ;  it  is  that 
thou  sufferest  that  Jezabel,  who  calls  herself  a  prophetess,  to 
teach  and  seduce  my  servants  to  commit  fornication  and  to  eat 
things  sacrificed  to  idols."  Here  appears  the  same  licentiousness 
against  which  Paul  contended. 

Do  we  need  to  review  here  the  long  list  of  Gnostic  sects  ? 
The  oldest  is  that  of  the  Simonians,  the  direct  brood  of  Simon, 
called  the  magician,  a  contemporary  of  the  Apostles,  who  did  not 
affirm  that  good  works  were  needless  for  salvation.  After  him 
came  a  crowd  of  imitators.  Without  Tnentioning  the  Nicolaites 
to  whom  we  have  alluded,  there  were  the  Valentinians  who 
denied  the  necessity  of  good  works,  and  deemed  their  salvation 
sure  by  being  only  spiritual  or  pneumatic.  There  were  the 
Basilideans,  the  Cainites,  and  the  Carpocratians  who  pushed 
their  spirituality  still  further,  by  making  the  most  flagrant  vio- 
lation of  all  morality  and  incumbent  duty  :  the  Actians  or 
Eunomians,  who  likewise  denied  the  necessity  of  good  works. 
In  the  fourth  century  came  the  Messalians,  who  gave  the  faithful 
a  dispensation  from  every  virtue,  provided  they  prayed  in- 
cessantly, and  who,  having  become  as  they  thought  incapable  of 
sin,  abandoned  themselves  without  scruple  to  all  kinds  of  licen- 
tiousness. Prior  to  these,  in  the  second  century,  were  the 
Adamites,  who  pretended  that  they  had  been  restored  by  Jesus 
to  the  original  innocence  of  Adam,  and  who  consequently  went 
naked,  rejected  marriage,  and  deemed  the  community  of  women 
a  privilege  of  this  return  to  primitive  innocence.  Then  in  the 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  33 

middle  ages  was  a  swarm  of  monstrous  sects.  The  one  last  men- 
tioned begot  in  the  twelfth  century  the  sect  of  Teudemus,  who 
declared  fornication  and  adultery  holy  and  meritorious  ;  in  the 
fourteenth,  the  Turlupins  who  maintained  that  when  man  had 
arrived  at  a  certain  point  of  perfection,  he  was  freed  from  all  law, 
and  that  the  liberty  of  the  sage  consisted,  not  in  ruling  his 
passions,  but  on  the  contrary,  in  shaking  off  the  yoke  of  the 
divine  laws.  We  need  not  relate  what  abominable  practices 
followed  such  theories.  Finally,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
fifteenth  century  the  Picards  or  Begghaws  renewed  all  the  errors 
of  the  old  Adamites.  The  middle  ages  produced  also  the  Brothers 
of  the  Free  Soul,  who  maintained  the  unimportance  of  external 
works. 

We  cannot  leave  the  middle  ages  without  making  two  re- 
marks which  the  intelligent  reader  will  appreciate.  One  has 
particular  reference  to  the  Gnostics.  We  see  in  their  systemized 
depravity,  a  confirmation,  from  point  to  point,  of  our  assertion — 
that  this  sort  of  error  and  licentiousness  originates  in  the  con- 
tempt of  the  body  preached  by  Christianity.  We  said  before  that 
this  could  be  exhibited  in  two  ways  ;  either  by  mortifying  one's 
body  by  subjecting  it  to  the  most  severe  privations,  or  in  refusing 
it  everything,  even  rule  itself.  We  have  also  said  that  this  fiction, 
the  dream  of  the  new-birth  era,  of  a  perfection  unexampled  in 
this  life,  was  calculated  to  craze  people  on  the  subject  of  morals, 
and  to  authorize  acts,  criminal,  doubtless,  under  existing  physical 
and  moral  conditions,  but  not  so  under  the  imaginary  ones  of  that 
unreal  kingdom  to  which  they  believed  themselves  admitted. 

Is  it  not  this  that  we  see  among  the  Gnostics  ?  Are  not  these 
the  exact  causes  we  see  in  play  ?  Was  it  not  this  contempt  of  the 
body  that  produced  among  them  the  two  at  once  opposite  effects 
in  the  one  case,  a  rule  of  life  excessively  rigid,  unheard  of  morti- 
fications; in  the  other,  a  boundless  disorder  and  unparalleled 
enormities  ? 

The  other  remark  is  no  less  important,  and  we  have  had  else- 
where occasion  to  make  a  similar  one,  respecting  the  protestations 
renewed  from  age  to  age  in  Christendom,  against  the  distinction 
of  persons  in  the  Deity. 

We  should  say  then :  Since  Monotheism, — in  spite  of  the 
double  influence  of  ancient  Paganism  (eminently  polytheistic), 
in  spite  of  the  influence  of  authorative  Christianity,  in  spite  of 
the  tendency  and  general  character  of  the  age, — yet  penetrated 
through  all  obstacles,  its  germ  must  indeed  have  originally  lain 
in  Christianity,  though  stifled  afterwards  by  those  parasitical 
Gnostics  that  usurped  its  place  and  hindered  its  expansion.  Wo 


34  JEWISH  AND  CHKISTIAN  ETHICS. 

make  the  same  assertion  of  the  present  time,  and  doubtless  with 
more  reason  still.  If,  in  spite  of  the  moral  instincts  of  all  rational 
creatures,  and  of  their  innate  notions  of  right  and  wrong;  in  spite 
of  Pagan  morals  which,  though  corrupt  indeed  as  well,  yet  never 
dared  raise  that  corruption  to  the  dignity  of  a  principle,  or 
systematize  and  consecrate  immorality;  if  in  spite  of  the  example, 
the  authority,  and  the  condemnations  of  official  Christianity 
these  errors  made  way;  if  there  is  no  period  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  when  the  eye  is  not  saddened  by  some  revolting  spectacle, 
by  some  monstrous  theory;  if  these  sects,  in  the  fifteenth  century 
even,  made  full  display  of  their  hideous  nudity  ;  and  lastly,  if 
Judaism,  in  the  numerous  phases  of  its  history  immovably 
secular,  never  astonished  the  world  by  similar  spectacles, — we 
must  indeed  say  that  Christianity  contained  some  latent  force, 
some  powerful  germ,  that  strove  irresistibly  to  grow,  to  expand, 
and  to  bear  plenteous  fruit.  And  what  is  this  germ,  if  not  the 
very  causes  we  have  named  ? 

We  have  just  said  that  Judaism  is  free  from  such  stains.  We 
hasten  to  add  that  there  is  a  single  exception,  which  also  goes 
to  prove,  not  only  the  nature  of  the  errors  that  produced  such 
effects,  but  even  the  Cabalistic  origin  of  Christianity, — an  origin 
that  through  the  corruption  of  doctrine,  contributed  powerfully 
to  the  birth  and  growth  of  this  abominable  morality.  This 
exception  is  another  pretended  Messiah,  another  Cabalist.  His 
name  was  Schabbatai  Zevi.  Instructive  sight !  With  him  the 
same  sequence,  the  same  connection  of  doctrines  ends  in  the  same 
abominations.  He,  too,  is  the  incarnate  righteousness  of  God ; 
he,  too,  is  the  God-Messiah,  the  introducer  of  a  new  era,  who 
opens,  in  his  own  person,  the  Messianic  age,  the  world  to  come. 
He,  too,  distinguishes  the  Spiritual  from  the  Psychics  and  the 
Hylics,  because  the  Zohar  seemed  to  authorize  it;  only  he  does 
not  interpret  this  spirituality  according  to  the  Zohar,  but  truly 
after  Paul's  fashion ;  he,  too,  lives  in  this  world  of  spirituality 
and  perfect  liberty  which  is  the  JSina,  the  superior  mother,  the 
world  to  come,  where  evil  is  not  perceptible  even,  where  no  dis- 
tinction separates  the  pure  from  the  impure,  good  from  evil, 
because  there  all  is  good,  pure  and  beautiful ;  he,  too,  living  in 
this  fantastic  world,  thinks  all  is  lawful  for  him,  and  Messiah, 
Saint,  God  though  he  styles  himself,  he  astonishes  the  world  by 
his  unspeakable  impurities,  his  open  licentiousness,  shameless, 
I  was  about  to  say  religious,  since  it  was  in  the  name  of  religion, 
duty  and  virtue  that  he  transgressed.  Is  it  not,  as  we  have  else- 
where said,  a  history  in  miniature  (better  known  as  it  is  nearer 
us)  of  the  birth  and  vicissitudes  of  Christianity  ? 


AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  35 

Another  consideration  already  touched  on,  throws  still  more 
light  on  the  importance  of  these  examples.  It  is  that  whenever 
Christianity  thought  found  itself  uncontrolled,  whenever  this 
great  tree,  instead  of  vegetating  in  official  enclosures,  under  the 
artificial  heat  its  guardians  meted  out  to  it,  could  freely  expand 
to  the  free  air  and  sunlight,  it  failed  not  to  produce,  close  to  its 
finest  shoots,  most  agreeable  fruits,  and  healthiest  shades,  a 
branch,  a  fruit,  a  shade  of  death,  as  say  the  Scriptures  :  as  witness 
two  great  epochs  of  Christian  history.  The  first,  its  virgin 
liberty,  unbroken  as  yet  to  ecclesiastical  authority,  namely 
Gnosticism,  of  which  we  have  spoken;  the  other,  its  reconquered 
liberty,  the  yoke  of  the  exterior  Church  for  the  first  time  shaken 
off,  namely  Protestantism,  about  which  we  shall  say  a  few  words. 
Will  Protestantism  confirm  our  predictions  ?  What  will  this  re- 
assertion  of  the  right  of  free  inquiry,  this  return  to  strict  reason, 
this  appeal  to  good  sense,  logic,  and  the  free  interpretation  of 
Scripture  produce  ?  Beyond  doubt,  if  the  same  phenomenon 
show  itself,  if  the  same  immorality  come  to  crown  efforts  so 
great,  aspirations  so  noble,  and  independence  so  proud  ;  if  this  is 
the  final  result  of  all  free  investigation,  we  must  say  that  the 
germs  arid  causes  I  have  pointed  out,  lie  absolutely  at  the  root 
of  Christianity.  And  remember  that  Protestantism,  sounding 
the  reveille  for  our  paralyzed  or  dormant  faculties,  naturally 
allies  itself  with  all  the  noble  and  generous  instincts  of  the  heart; 
it  makes  its  appearance  in  history  at  a  time  comparatively 
advanced,  when  morals  began  to  throw  off  that  gross  mould, 
acquired  during  the  middle  ages,  and  when  classic  studies  aided 
the  parallel  development  of  our  better  faculties.  What  better 
omens  could  be  desired  of  the  advent  of  a  pure  and  high  morality? 
And  yet,  what  a  harrowing  picture  does  the  religion  of  a  free 
enquiry  present  !  .Far  from  reproaching  Protestantism,  we  say 
that  it  has  completely  fulfilled  its  mission,  that  it  has  unhesitat- 
ingly and  courageously  laid  bare  the  defects  in  Christian  ethics 
and  the  evil  it  may  produce  when  the  sacredotal  eye  no  longer 
keeps  watch  over  the  threatening  hydra.  But,  however,  our 
assertions  are  only  better  proved,  and  the  history  of  Protestant 
doctrine  is  our  strongest  support. 

Facts  speak  for  themselves.  We  shall  but  mention  John 
Huss,  who  obeying  his  personal  inspiration  alone,  teaches  the 
same  doctrine.  But  Luther  comes  ;  he  frees  himself  from  the 
ruling  church,  and  does  not  recoil  from  the  most  audacious  revolt. 
What  will  he-decide  as  to  ethics.  What  will  be  his  judgment  on 
good  works  ?  One,  I  dare  say,  that  will  cause  a  shudder.  He 
pronounces  them  mortal  sins.  Reason,  the  heart,  good  morals, 


36  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

oppose  this  doctrine  through  Melancthon.  Vain  resistance !  In 
1567  the  Diet  of  Worms  condemns  him  and  approves  of  Luther's 
ethics.  Can  we  expect  anything  better  of  Calvin  ?  He  has, 
nevertheless,  no  connexion  with  any  one,  neither  with  Luther, 
nor  the  church.  What  will  he  teach  regarding  Christian  ethics  ? 
"We  believe,"  say  the  Calvanists  in  chorus,  "that  by  faith  alone 
we  share  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ ;  GOD  HAS  NO  HEGARD 
FOR  GOOD  WORKS.  Protestantism  passes  from  hand  to  hand, 
changes  its  schools,  its  masters,  its  country,  its  church — its 
morality  is  always  the  same.  The  Anglicans,  who  are  the  most 
moderate,  announce  in  1562  :  That  good  works,  the  products  of 
faith  even,  cannot  expiate  our  sins  and  satisfy  the  strict  justice  of 

God As  to  those  done  without  the  grace  of  Jesus,  they 

are  but  mortal  sins.11 

Years  glide  away,  and  we  pass  to  another  form  of  Protestant- 
ism, to  another  country:  and  the  ethics  ?  Moral  works,  says  the 
Calvanistic  synod  of  1618,  do  not  count  for  our  justification.  We 
are  almost  on  the  threshold  of  modern  times,  and  the  Christian 
ethics,  with  free  speech,  free  teaching,  has  not  budged  a  step. 

Let  us,  however,  imitate  the  sick  man  who  shifts  his  position 
to  ease  his  pain:  let  us  pass  to  another  church,  let  us  ask  from 
another  period  information  about  the  Catholic  morality.  Re- 
markable fact!  While  the  priesthood,  ever  on  the  alert,  half 
religious,  half  secular,  watches  over  Catholic  morality  lest  it 
should  stray  to  paths,  where  society  might  be  lost  with  it,  the 
breath  of  liberty,  the  spirit  of  philosophy,  logic  and  its  claims, 
penetrate  through  those  gratings,  those  iron  walls  that  a  compact 
hierarchy  oppose  to  their  entrance ;  and  one  fine  day,  in  this 
enclosure  so  guarded,  ruled  and  watched,  a  strange  exotic  plant 
shoots  forth,  the  germs  of  which  doubtless  lay  in  the  lowest 
strata  of  the  soil,  but  which  a  more  penetrating  sun-ray,  a  breath 
of  spring  quite  fresh,  has  caused  to  blossom,  to  the  astonishment 
of  the  guardians.  We  need  hardly  say  we  allude  to  Quietism. 
Molinos  who  has  given  it  for  ever  his  name,  bold  as  he  was,  is 
not  isolated  in  the  history  of  Catholicism.  He  belongs  to  the 
school  that  claims  Origen  as  father,  and  that  survived  in  Evager, 
deacon  of  Constantinople,  in  the  Hesychastes  of  the  14th  century, 
in  the  Begghards  (who  carried  doctrinal  consequences  further), 
and  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  in  most  of  the  Mystics,  the 
most  celebrated  of  whom,  in  this  respect,  was  the  archbishop  of 
Cambray.  Now  the  most  characteristic  doctrine  of  Quietism, 
that  upon  which,  far  or  near,  were  based  all  the  forementioned 
schools,  and  which  awoke  the  alarm  of  the  church  was  :  That,  in 
the  contemplative  state,  the  use  of  sacraments  and  the  practice  of 


JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS-  37 

good  works,  are  unimportant  matters,  and  that  the  most  criminal 
pictures  and  impressions  that  are  formed  on  the  sensitive  part  of 
the  soul  are  not  sins.  Fenelon  himself,  archbishop  and  moder- 
atist  as  he  was,  this  candid,  noble  soul  and  loyal  Catholic,  did  not 
deem  that  he  was  erring  from  the  truth  by  teaching  that  the  soul 
may,  without  guilt,  push  its  disinterestedness  to  the  point  that  it 
is  no  longer  solicitous  about  its  salvation  or  damnation;  and  the 
Society  of  the  Holy-Office  had  need  of  thirty-seven  conferences  to 
censure  Fenelon.  f 

Thus  every  blow  aimed  by  Christianity  against  ancient  Jewish 
orthodoxy  recoiled  against  the  most  sacred  interests  of  morality 
and  shook  its  most  natural  supports. 

Christianity,  placing  its  kingdom  out  of  this  world,  not  taking 
in  political  society,  condemning  the  secularly  of  the  Mosaic 
system,  was  forced  from  the  nature  of  things/ to  mount  itself  the 
empty  throne,  to  choose  servitude  or  dominion,  to  put  the 
spiritual  in  the  place  of  the  temporal,  and,  with  the  same  stroke, 
to  establish  religious  intolerance.  By  the  abolition  of  the  law,  it 
sapped  the  foundations  of  morality  ;  it  prepared  and  authorized, 
unwittingly  no  doubt,  licentiousness  of  morals.  By  its  fictions 
about  death  and  resurrection,  forced  suppositions  for  a  reality 
negatived  by  fact,  it  sanctioned  the  huge  humbug  of  giving  to  the 
living  the  liberty  of  the  dead,  to  existing  humanity  ttye  laws  that 
shall  rule  it  when  it  leaves  the  tomb.  By  the  Redemption,  it 
exerted  a  triple  influence  upon  the  fate  of  morality:  by  the  restor- 
ation of  man  to  Adam's  primitive  state,  it  consecrated  a  retro- 
spective fiction,  just  as  by  the  fiction  of  the  resurrection  it 
forestalled  the  rights  of  the  most  distant  future — an  illusion  as 
great  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  !  By  its  very  idea  of  sin,  it 
overturned  the  most  natural  notions  of  right  and  wrong,  teaching 
that  it  is  through  the  Law  alone  we  are  made  acquainted  with 
sin.  By  the  very  act  of  redemption  it  detached  man  from  the 
work  of  salvation,  by  throwing  upon  the  God-Messiah  all  the 
weight  of  expiation,  and  transferring  the  sphere  of  his  regener- 
ation from  within  to  without.  In  a  word,  the  pernicious  fruits  of 
these  speculative  errors  were  not  slow  to  appear — what  do  I  say — 
did  not  cease  to  manifest  themselves  from  age  to  age  in  number- 
less and  learned  heresies,  strange  apparitions  doubtless,  often 
frightful  and  detestable,  but  which  the  logical  sequence  of  ideas 
brought  from  time  to  time  upon  the  stage  of  history,  the  subjects 
at  once  of  terror,  indignation  and  mournful  thought,  -for  genera- 
tions to  come. 


38  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

ITS  TITLES  AND  ITS  PRETENTIONS. — WHY  HEBREW  ETHICS  HAS  NOT  BEEN  DTTLT 
APPRECIATED. — DIVISION  OF  ETHICS. — DIGNITY  OF  MAN,  HIS  FALL,  HIS  REGENERATION. 
— FREE  JUDGMENT  AND  GRACE. — LIFE. — GENERAL  MATTMS. — PHARISAICAL  PLAN. — 
EXAMPLES. — TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

We  judged  that  we  could  not  proceed  in  our  essay  on  Christian 
ethics  better  than  by  commencing  with  an  examination  of  the 
theoretic  foundations  upon  which  this  rests.  Have  we  erred  in 
our  choice  of  method  ?  Or  have  we,  by  chance,  gone  astray  in 
our  estimations?  The  reader  must  say. 

However  that  be,  another  work,  a  new  task  awaits  us.  What- 
ever be  the  foundation  of  Christian  ethics,  whatever  may  be 
decided  against  their  solidity,  still  a  grand  and  imposing  struc- 
ture has  been  raised  upon  them.  A  thousand  generations  have 
been  sheltered  beneath  its  hospitable  roof;  a  thousand  sufferings 
and  griefs  have  found  there  an  almost  divine  alleviation;  a  thou- 
sand virtues  have  spread  from  it  through  the  world,  everywhere 
inspiring  courage  for  the  good,  fear  for  the  evil ;  a  thousand 
intellects  have  bent  in  reverence  before  it ;  let  us  too  bend  before 
this  masterpiece  of  half  a  dozen  Jews,  before  this  branch  of  the 
great  Hebrew  tree,  grafted  on  the  trunk  of  the  Gentiles.  We 
recognize  there  the  footprints  of  Judaism,  the  spirit  of  the 
patriarchs,  prophets  and  doctors;  and  are  tempted  to  say  with 
old  Isaac:  " Truly  the  hands  are  Esau's,  but  the  voice  is  indeed 
Jacobs'." 

Deplorable  effect  of  an  ever  widening  breach  !  It  happened, 
however  that,  after  many  ages,  Christianity  and  Judaism  tired, 
the  one  of  smiting,  the  other  of  suffering,  met  one  day,  and  re- 
cognized each  other,  saluting  with  the  address  of  father  and  son. 
But.  O  shame !  the  son  did  not  bow  before  the  white  hair  of  his 
father,  the  father  neither  embraced  nor  blessed  his  son,  the  Joseph, 
whom,  torn  so  young  from  the  paternal  hearth,  he  found  in  Egypt, 
great,  rich,  proud  of  his  power.  Whose  the  fault  ?  History  will 
say,  when  the  father  and  son,  reconciled,  shall  embrace. 

Meantime,  if  there  be  anything  which  retards  the  advent  of 
that  great  day,  it  is  the  superiority  the  son  arrogates  over  his  old 
father, — Christianity  over  the  religion  of  Israel — as  regarding 
morality.  If  there  be  any  outrage  which  a  father  cannot  endure 
without  degradation,  it  is  assuredly  this.  To  truth,  criticism 
and  opinion,  we  leave  the  task  of  examining  this  pretension,  and 
of  terminating  a  demeanor  that  has  prevailed  for  ages.  Many  a 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  39 

time,  alas !  Judaism  has  had  to  bear  the  stigma  of  this  insult, 
and  many  a  time  has  it  realized  the  terrible  prediction  of  Isaiah, 
that  persecution  would  add  slander  to  a  secular  martyrdom. 
Shall  a  day  of  justice,  of  impartiality,  of  right  criticism  ever 
come  ?  Let  us  hope  so.  Already  learned  pens  have  wrought  at 
the  great  work ;  already  is  opinion  moved,  shaken,  and  open 
criticism  speaks  of  certain  Jewish  maxims  (as  the  well  known 
reply  of  Hillel  to  the  proselyte)  that  preceded  and  inspired  the 
founder  of  Christianity.  Why  it  has  not  yet  won  a  just  and  law- 
ful victory,  and  why  a  full  success  has  not  crowned  such  efforts, 
we  shall  frankly  tell.  It  is  from  two  causes  equally  deplorable. 
The  one,  that  a  sufficient  line  of  demarcation  has  not  been  drawn 
between  Jewish  civil  polity  and  its  ethics  proper,  an  indispens- 
able distinction,  absolutely  required,  from  the  two  fold  nature 
of  Judaism,  as  we  have  shown.  The  other,  that  too  little  im- 
portance has  been  attached  to  tradition,  though  I  grant  that  the 
harangues  of  a  hostile  camp,  or  an  affectation  of  Jewish  Puritan- 
ism, not  at  all  in  accord  with  the  traditional,  rabbinical  Judaism 
we  profess,  has  given  it  sufficient.  We  shall  do  our  best  to  avoid 
these  two  rocks;  happy  if  we  advance  even  one  step  this  religious 
question,  which,  though  not  debated  in  the  civil  courts  or  journals, 
beats  deeply,  nevertheless,  in  the  heart  and  brain  of  man. 

We  shall  divide  our  work  into  several  parts.  Our  starting 
point  shall  be  man,  the  ideas  that  each  side  entertains  respecting 
him,  its  ideas,  also,  of  the  world  and  life,  and  the  general 
maxims  that  both  have  laid  down,  respecting  morals.  The 
duties  that  regard  ourselves,  humility,  innocence,  truth,  self- 
denial,  voluntary  poverty;  the  duties  that  we  owe  to  others,  and 
above  all,  charity,  that  great  word,  which  Christianity  pro- 
nounced for  the  first  time  to  an  ignorant  world ;  the  forgiveness 
of  injuries ;  love  towards  one's  enemies ;  our  ideas  about  sinners, 
the  anxiety  they  cause;  forbearance; — the  duties,  in  fine,  that 
connect  us  with  God:  the  aim  of  our  actions,  the  glory  of  God, 
faith,  trust  in  God,  love  of  God  and  perseverance, — such  are  the 
grand  subjects  that  shall  occupy  us  a  little  while,  too  sure  that 
we  cannot  exhaust  the  least  of  them.  But  it  will  suffice,  if  we 
throw  on  each  such  light  as  may  guide  some  one-of  greater  power 
and  inspiration  to  a  complete  performance. 

In  speaking  of  man,  we  shall  here  take  occasion  to  state  once 
more  that  to  Judaism,  unquestionably,  belongs  the  glory  of 
having  first  announced  to  men  that  they  are  children  of  the  same 
father;  of  having,  in  a  word,  proclaimed  a  UNIVERSAL,  BROTHER- 
HOOD. We  believe  that  this  glory  will  not  be  dimmed,  if  it 
takes  precedence  of  that  charity,  whose  brightest  jewel  and 


40  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

firmest  stay  it  is.  Nor  shall  we  speak  of  the  soul  and  its  powers, 
and  scarcely  shall  we  touch,  in  passing,  on  free  judgment  and 
original  sin.  We  do  not  discourse  on  the  whole  nature  of  man, 
but  only  on  what  has  direct  reference  to  practical  morality. 

Now,  man's  dignity  possesses  for  man  a  most  powerful  attrac- 
tion. Doubtless  the  Gospels  have  some  traits  that  exalt  to  his 
view  human  nature,  although  other  views  and  particularly 
ulterior  theological  speculations  have  placed  him  far  beneath 
those  calm  hights  to  which  Judaism  had  raised  him.  If  we  read 
in  Luke  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  us,  if  there  is 
nothing  more  frequent  than  to  hear  the  faithful  called  "members 
of  Christ,"  if  they  will  have  it  that  "  Christ  dwells  in  us,"  if  the 
believer  ranks  with  the  angels  and  even  above  them, — this,  when 
well  understood,  is  only  the  lost  echo  of  ancient  Jewish  doctrines, 
that  were  yet  alive  in  the  days  of  Jesus.  Judaism,  as  we  know, 
declares  man  made  after  the  image  of  God ;  he  is  the  king  and 
master  of  creation,  he  is  the  vicar  and  providence  of  God  upon 
earth — I  had  almost  said  he  was  its  God,  as,  according  to  the 
Rabbis,  God  said  to  Jacob,  "I  am  God  above,  thou  art  god 
below."  He  is,  according  to  the  Midrasch,  the  love-knot  uniting 
heaven  and  earth,  for  he  has  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  one,  and 
the  corporeal  nature  of  the  other;  by  this  precious  combination 
he  makes  peace  between  the  spirit  and  the  body,  between  heaven 
and  earth — ever  at  variance.  And  if  we  question  the  Cabalists 
about  this,  they  tell  us  that  man's  influence,  his  thoughts, 
sentiments  and  actions  have  an  echo  and  vibrate  sensitively, 
like  the  rings  of  some  subtle,  delicate  chain,  in  the  farthest 
spheres  of  the  universe.  But  what  is  this  in-dwelling  Kingdom 
of  God  if  not  the  present  Pharisaism?  Moses  said  :  " Build  me 
a  tabernacle  that  I  may  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them."  The 
Rabbis  go  much  farther :  by  a  slight  and  felicitous  modifica- 
tion, of  which  the  Mosaic  words  are  quite  susceptible,  they 
change  this  wooden  tabernacle,  where  God  is  about  to  dwell,  to 
the  soul,  heart,  and  spirit  of  man, — a  house  a  thousand  times 
more  worthy  of  Deity — and  they  make  this  great  assertion,  that 
God  dwells  in  Israel,  within  him.  This,  however,  is  only  the 
simple  germ  which  we  must  see  in  its  rich  and  powerful  bloom 
from  the  hands  of  the  Cabalists.  ^his  miserable  body  of  man 
is  nothing  less  than  an  august  temple,  whose  parts  are  his 
members ;  and  taking  with  one  hand  the  plan  of  the  Temple  of 
Jerusalem,  with  the  other,  the  descriptive  anatomy  of  the  human 
body,  they  trace,  step  by  step,  the  parallel  development  of  each, 
assigning  to  each  member  a  function  corresponding  to  some  part 
of  the  Temple,  and  they  end  at  last  with  this  sublime  statement, 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  41 

that  the  heart  is  the  Holy  of  Holies,  or  the  special  and  usual  seat 
of  the  Glory  (SCHECHIXA),  which  is  nothing  else  than  the  king- 
dom of  God,  as  we  have  frequently  affirmed,  and  as  the  passage 
from  Luke  plainly  shows.  Much  more  ;  the  just  man  is  the  car 
the  true  car,  that  God  guides,  and  the  soul  of  the  just  is  at  once 
the  car  »md  the  throne  of  his  holiness. 

We  are — all  of  us — members  of  the  Schechina.  of  the  King- 
dom (as  the  faithful  are  members  of  Jesus,  the  incarnate  Word) ; 
and  this  is  why  all  suffering  and  pain  react  on  the  heart  of  this 
tender  mother,  who  fails  not  to  moan  at  each  blood  drop  or  tear 
of  even  the  impious,  and  to  show  herself  wounded  by  the  same 
stroke  that  has  smitten  a  member-child.*  After  this  shall  we  be 
surprised  to  hear  the  doctors  and  cabalists  say  that  human  souls 
are  superior  to  angels,  as  the  protected  is  superior  to  the  protector ; 
that  they  were  the  counselors  of  God  at  the  time  of  the  creation ; 
that  the  just  are  God's  coadjutants  in  forming  the  heavens  and 
the  earth ;  that  they  too  have  the  title  creators  ;  that  they  are  the 
support  and  foundation  of  the  universe;  that  the  angels  will  one 
day  ask  the  just  to  disclose  the  mysteries  of  the  eternal — which 
Paul  expresses  in  his  fashion  by  saying :  "  Know  ye  not,  that  we 
shall  judge  the  angels ;"  f  and  which  Peter  also  teaches,  saying 
that  the  angels  desire  to  look  into  the  Gospel  prediction  (1  Gen, 
Ep.  i.  12) — that  they  rise  to  such  a  degree  of  holiness  that  the 
angels  shall  proclaim  them  thrice  holy,  as  they  do  the  Creator ; 
and  that,  at  last,  God  will  deign  to  allow  them  His  incom- 
municable name.  Here,  indeed,  is  an  ideal,  beyond  imagination 
noble,  attractive  and  sublime.  Add,  that  all  can  attain  this  end; 
that  each  one  may  aspire  to  equal  Moses  or  Aaron,  AND  THAT  HE 
OUGHT — and  we  can  see  what  grand  perspectives  Judaism  opens 
for  the  observant  believer,  and  what  superior  ardor  must  animate 
the  most  apathetic  soul,  in  the  presence  of  a  future  so  glorious,  of 
possibilities  so  strange. 

Nevertheless,  man* is  fallen;  this  Judaism  as  well  as  Chris- 
tianity teaches,  with  this  difference  always,  that,  in  the 
Genesaic  history  of  the  Fall,  the  former  gives  us  glimpses  of 
a  philosophy,  far  different  in  sense  from  the  childish  story  of 
the  apple  and  the  serpent,  while  Christianity,  on  the  contrary, 
ever  regards  sin,  true  sin,  as  the  result  of  the  unlucky  fruit 
presented  to  Adam,  and  the  Church  shut  the  mouth  of  Origen, 
who  tried  to  lift  himself  a  litt^  beyond  the  literal  sense.  In 
Judaism,  every  school  of  any  importance,  from  the  Cabalists 
downward,  sees  in  the  narrative  of  Genesis  something  above  and 
beyond  the-drama  of  Paradise.  Still,  with  All  man  is  fallen ;  and 

*  Sanhederin^e.  t  1  Cor.  vi.  3. 


42  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

how  shall  he  rise?  By  the  incarnate  word,  replies  Christianity; 
by  the  incarnate  Word,  likewise  replies  Judaism  and  especially 
Cabalistic  Judaism.  But  what  is  this  incarnate  Word?  Here  it 
is,  that  the  diverse  genius  of  each  religion  shows  itself  to  every 
eye. 

The  Word,  says  Christianity,  the  eternal  Logos,  becomes 
flesh;  is  born,  lives,  speaks,  teaches,  sacrifices  himself  as  a  sin- 
expiation  ;  and  all  mankind  suffer,  die,  rise  with  him,  and 
through  him  recover  their  primitive  purity.  Incarnation,  sacri- 
fice, virtue,  merit,  atonement,  all  quite  exterior  things,  are  applied 
to  mankind  by  a  single  word,  and  that  is  IMPUTATION.  Is  it  the 
same  in  Cabalistic  Judaism  ?  There,  the  AVord,  Logos,  Tipheret, 
besides  its  eternal  incarnation  as  substance  in  nature,  incarnates 
itself  also  as  thought  in  the  Law;  law,  which  under  a  thousand 
phases  and  a  thousand  applications,  governs  the  universe,  from 
the  angel  before  God  or  the  star  that  rolls  in  infinite  space,  to  the 
worm  that  creeps  on  the  earth,  to  man  who  is  included  also  in 
the  universal  harmony,  and  for  whom  this  thousand-faced,  thou- 
sand-sided law  circumscribes  itself,  adapts  itself  to  the  plan  he 
occupies  in  creation,  and  becomes  the  law  of  Moses.  This  is  the 
Word,  the  incarnate  Law — this  is  the  perpetual  Eucharist  upon 
which  the  holy  feed,  and  this  the  redemption  that  has  for  its 
sphere  the  heart  and  mind  of  man — the  Law,  the  Sinai,  at  the 
foot  of  which  the  Israelites  were  cleansed  from  the  old  stain  of 
our  first  parents.  We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  pernicious  effects 
of  a  redemption  quite  external,  offered  us  by  Christianity;  we 
have  seen  them  but  too  well  in  all  those  fore-mentioned  schools 
or  heresies,  that  justified  their  apathy  or  licentiousness  by  the 
stupefaction  of  the  moral  faculties  inevitably  produced  by  the 
Christian  theory  of  redemption.  How,  if  we  enter  for  a  moment 
the  sanctuary  of  conscience,  and  ask  Christianity  what  use  it  has 
made  of  free  judgment,  the  most  precious,  unquestionably,  of 
God's  gifts  ?  Far  are  we  from  wishing,  to  involve  ourselves  in 
that  dark  labyrinth  where-  graces  of  every  sort  are  so  lavished, 
that  human  liberty  is  at  last  stifled  beneath  the  weight  of  so  many 
benefits.  If  any  fact  come  clearly  forth  from  that  grand  discussion, 
dating  from  the  birth  of  Christianity  and  continued  almost  to  our 
day,  it  is,  that  with  the  Catholics  (who,  after  all,  grant  the  largest 
field  to  human  liberty),  man  is  led  to  good,  to  virtue,  only 
through  an  inciting  influence  from  on  high.  This  is  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  Orange  in  529,  against  the  semi-Pelagiens. 
What  does  Judaism  teach  about  grace,  and  free  Judgment? 
Doubtless  it,  too,  recognizes  the  action  of  God  upon  man's 
liberty,  it  believes  in  a  co-operation  through  which  we  are  aided 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

to  rise  towards  Him.  Doubtless  it,  too,  offers  a  continual  prayer 
for  this  grace,  this  invaluable  help.  But,  let  us  haste  to  add, 
that  the  only  doctrine  at  the  roots  of  Christianity  that  is  a  true 
reflection  of  old  Jewish  orthodoxy  is  that  one  qualified  by  semi- 
Pelagianism.  If  nothing  perfect  can  be  accomplished  by  man 
without  the  aid  of  the  Eternal;  if  He  alone  imparts  courage, 
light,  and  perseverance  to  man's  heart, — the  first  step  withal,  the 
initiative  of  every  good  work,  the  first  aspiration  towards  good- 
ness, truth  and  ineffable  beauty  must  spring  from  the  heart  itself 
of  man.  He,  himself,  as  say  the  doctors,  must  open  to  them  the 
door, — were  this  but  as  small  as  a  needle's  point, — in  order  that 
God  may  throw  open  for  him  another  as  wide  as  the  Temple's  ;  * 
and  to  sum  all  with  a  Cabalistic  saying:  "The  arousalis,  first, 
from  below,  then  from  above.11 

Is  not  this  to  augment  at  once  the  responsibility  and  the 
grandeur  of  man  ? — to  make  him,  instead  of  a  passive  instrument 
in  God's  hands,  a  force  to  which  He  has  assigned  its  own  sphere  of 
action  ? — to  condemn,  in  the  same  sentence,  idleness,  dissipation 
and  neglect  of  duty  ? — and  to  give  an  increased  impulse  to  man, 
who  needs  but  a  simple  noble  beginning  to  see  himself  instantly 
penetrated  with  light,  courage  and  invincible  strength — priceless 
gifts  from  on  high,  Man,  about  whom  are  such  conflicting  ideas, 
is  cast  on  this  earth,  the  theatre  of  his  acts,  under  the  mysterious 
conditions  we  call  life.  What  idea  does  Christianity  give  us  of 
life?  It  would  be  easy  to  appeal  here  to  those  great  geniuses, 
ancient  and  modern,  who  have  seen  in  Christianity,  hate  of  the 
world,  condemnation  of  life,  contempt  of  all  its  charms  and  most 
precious  gifts.  Our  task  would  be  too  easy,  and  we  might  seem 
to  take  refuge  under  imposing  names.  Doubtless  a  testimony 
almost  unanimous  would  be  no  small  presumption  in  favor  of 
what  we  have  said,  and  are  about  to  say;  but  it  is  from  the 
Gospels  that  we  wish  to  ask  the  theory  of  life,  the  ideas  we  ought 
to  entertain  of  the  world,  of  its  values,  its  conditions  and  its 
relations  to  life  eternal.  Now,  if  there  be  any  thing  proveable  in 
the  Gospels  it  is  that  the  term  world,  invariably  figures  there  as 
the  synonym  of  vice,  evil  and  sin.  Could  it  be  otherwise  with  a 
religion  that  terms  itself  exiled  here  below,  and  that  cries:  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  \ 

Indeed,  it  would  be  an  endless  task  to  examine  and  cite  all 
the  passages  where  the  world  is  made  the  antithesis  of  virtue ; 
and  the  transformation  this  word  has  undergone — to  stand 
as  the  symbol  of  evil,  instead  of  the  Hebrew  synonym  of 
eternity  (clam)— Is  not  the  least  injury  Jewish  thought  has 
*  Midrasch. 


4  JEWISH  AND  CHKISTIAN  ETHIC& 

suffered  at  the  hand  of  Christianity.  We  shall  say  only  that 
what  happened  to  the  Law,  has  happened  to  the  world.  We  have 
seen  that  the  Law  was  identified  with  sin,  and  the  world  also  is 
to  be  identified  with  it,  with  evil.  Some  decisive  quotations  will 
suffice  to  confirm  the  assertions  of  the  most  impartial  criticisms. 
Jesus  told  his  disciples  that  they  were  not  of  the  world,  even  as 
he  was  not  of  the  world;*  and  what  proves  that  no  interpretation 
but  the  most  absolute  and  literal  is  admissible,  is  that  the 
PRINCE  OF  THIS  WORKD  is  always  represented  as  the  adversary 
of  Jesus  and  his  Church.  And  truly,  it  is  impossible  to  say  that 
the  word  world  refers  merely  to  the  generation  of  that  time,  or 
yet  again  to  what  is  evil  and  vicious  here  below.  For  the  genius 
of  evil  would  never  have  been  personified  by  '*  the  Prince  of  this 
world,"  if  the  world  itself  had  not  appeared  to  Jesus  and  his 
followers  worthy  only  of  the  rule  of  a  demon.  See  John  xii.  31, — 
where  the  Prince  of  this  world  is  about  to  be  "cast  out," — and 
chapter  xiv.  30, — where  the  Prince  of  this  world  advances  against 
Jesus  to  destroy  him — and  the  justness  of  our  assertion,  and  of 
the  opinion  of  Marcion  (heretic  though  he  was),  will  be  seen, 
namely,  that  the  God  of  the  ancient  law,  though  truly  the  God 
of  Nature  as  well,  is  yet  very  different  from  the  Deity  of  the 
Gospels. 

With  Judaism  it  is  altogether  different.  We  do  not  say  the 
Judaism  of  the  Bible ;  for,  so  far  from  falling  into  the  extrava- 
gance of  the  Gospels,  it  seems  to  lean  rather  to  the  other  side, 
in  so  favorable  a  light  are  presented  the  actual  world,  life,  its 
worth,  and  conditions ;  and  the  inferential  denial  that  it  has 
any  spirituality,  any  regard  for  another  life,  is  the  proof  of  this, 
So  we  shall  imitate  Mr.  Salvador,  who,  following  the  Bible  only, 
sees  in  Judaism  nothing  but  matter  and  material  advantages, 
in  other  words,  a  complete  antithesis  to  the  Christian  conception. 
No  !  true  Judaism  lies  not  here,  but  in  tradition  and  its  instru- 
ments, that,  while  accepting  the  heritage  of  the  Bible,  dominate 
it,  from  the  full  hight  and  superiority  of  eternal  life,  upon  this 
ephemeral  orb.  Now,  how  speaks  tradition  regarding  the  world  ? 
It  is  not  a  prison,  a  hell,  a  purgatory,  a  place  of  banishment,  as 
the  religious  or  philosophic  alternately  teach.  It  is  simply  a 
vestibule.  No  longer  the  highroad,  but  not  as  yet  the  house;  it 
is  a  place  of  initiation,  of  apprenticeship  to  a  future  life,  where 
the  guests  prepare  to  enter  the  triclinium,  or  dining-hall  palace. | 
It  is  the  to-day,  as-eternity  is  the  to-morrow  ;  the  time  for  labor, 
for  action,  for  good  works,  for  worship  and  piety,  as  eternity  is 
the  time  for  retribution  ;J  it  is  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath,  on  which 

*  John,  xvii.  I  Aboth,  chap.  iv.  t  TaL,  treatise  Eroubin,  chap-ii. 


'JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS.  45 

the  repast  is  prepared  for  the  Lord's  Day;*'  it  is  the  season  of 
duty  and  submission,  as  the  morrow  shall  be  that  of  freedom, 
from  every  law.f  Precious  time!  " wherein  a  single  hour  of 
virtue  and  repentance  is  worth  more  than  an  entire  eternity," 
for  the  latter  gives  only  in  the  degree  that  it  receives  ;J  and 
not  without  reason  did  Solomon  pronounce  the  dead  lion  less 
happy  than  the  living  dog.  (j 

One  fact  gives  the  whole  difference  between  the  two  doctrines, 
namely,  that  while  the  Prince  of  this  world  is,  for  Christianity, 
the  genius  of  evil,  this  title  is  given  by  the  Cabalists  to  their 
kingdom,  the  Jfalchout,  also  styled  the  Prince  of  this  world.  A 
fact  doubly  significant !  for  while,  on  the  one  hand,  it  confirms 
our  judgment  on  the  present  question,  it  makes  us  almost  see  the 
moral  consequences  of  that  omission  in  dogma  of  which  we  have 
spoken,  I  mean  the  obliteration  and  absorption  of  the  Malchout 
(the  present  world),  into  the  heart  of  the  Bina  (the  world  to 
come).  In  the  place  so  made  void,  Christianity  has  enthroned  a 
demon — the  Prince  of  this  world. 

We  shall  but  point  out  what  renders  Christianity  incapable  of 
governing  the  present  life,  condemning,  spurning  and  vilifying 
as  it  does  all  its  most  precious  gifts.  Life  itself  is  an  incum- 
brance,  a  weight,  of  which  we  should  desire  to  be  quickly  rid 
(Paul) ;  the  flesh,  is  "a  flesh  of  sin,"  that  can  be  reinstated  only 
by  death  and  resurrection.  Could  it  find  a  place  for  the  dearest 
and  holiest  affections  ?  The  rich  and  riches,  the  great,  and  all 
human  grandeur,  science,  joy,  get  not  a  word  indicative  of  the 
good  use  to  which  man  may  convert  them  here  below.  I  know 
well  that  the  Church  tries  hard  to  see,  in  the  anathematizing  of 
this  use,  a  condemnation  of  abuses  only.  In  vain  !  for  not  only 
does  John  exhort  us  not  to  love  the  world  or  the  things  it  con- 
tains, § — he  who  loves  it  is  not  loved  of  God :  in  the  world  all  is 
concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  lust  of  the  eyes  and  pride  of  life, — 
but  Jesus  himself  cries  to  us,1f  "  Woe  to  ye,  rich  men  !"  On 
account  of  their  vices  ?  No ;  "  because  ye  have  -already  had  your 
consolation."  "Woe  to  ye  that  are  filled!"  And  why?  Be- 
cause a  reverse  of  fortune  awaits  them  ?  No  ;  "  because  ye  shall 
hunger:11  "Woe  to  ye  that  laugh  now,  for  ye  shall  lament  and 
weep."  Could  there  be  a  place  for  love  ?  Doubtless  charity  is 
recommended;  but  those  special  and  no  less  sacred  ties,  that 
adorn  and  sanctify  life  will  be  lost,  I  dare  say,  effaced  and  dis- 
solved in  universal  charity,  in  the  Church. 

*  Talmud,  Aboda  Zara,  chap.  i.          \  Talmud,  Schabbat,  I,  e. 

t  Talmud,  Schbabat,  chap.  ii.  $  John,  chap.  i. 

t  Abbth,  loc.  otf.  f  Luc.,  chap.  vi.          f  ,• .  X 


46  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

And  first,  could  anything  good,  lawful  or-sacred  exist  in  this 
world,  this  life,  this  sinful  flesh,  without  being  infected  by 
nature  and  sharing  their  condemnation  ? 

Could  it  be  the  family?  But,  he  who  will  not  leave  father, 
mother,  brothers,  sisters,  to  follow  the  new  doctrine  shall  not  have 
done  his  tvhole  duty;  nor  can  the  performance  of  even  the  last 
office  for  a  parent  make  the  disciple  of  Jesus  relent  a  mite,  for  it 
is  the  dead  who  must  bury  their  dead.  Jesus  himself,  when  told 
that  his  mother,  brothers  and  sisters  were  waiting  for  him  at  the 
door:  "These,"  said  he,  turning  to  his  disciples,  "are  my 
mother,  brothers  and  sisters;"  and  so  well  did  he  thenceforth 
identify  himself  with  the  era  of  the  resurrection  which,  to  his 
view,  was  also  that  of  the  Messiah,  that  he  dares  to  say  to  his 
mother :  "  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ?"  Is  this  the 
spectacle  that  Judaism  presents  ?  With  it  the  family  is  not  only 
the  central  point  from  whose  expansion  must  come  the  state, 
but  the  domestic  hearth  is  the  first  temple,  the  first  altar  for 
worship,  and  the  model  it  gives  us  for  imitation,  is  the  patriarch 
surrounded  by  his  family,  adoring  and  sacrificing  to  the  Most 
High. 

Could  it  be  marriage  ?  We  shall  not  repeat  the  assertion  that 
the  Gospel  condemns  it ;  but  it  is  indisputable  that  neither 
Jesus  nor  his  apostles  encourage  or  bless  it,  and  the  most  that  we 
can  infer  from  the  words  of  Paul  is  but  the  simple  toleration  of 
an  evil  with  which  he  could  not  wholly  do  away. 

Thus  life,  health,  riches,  science,  honor,  glory,  love,  family, 
country,  all  that  make  existence  great,  holy  and  happy,  these 
reflections  of  heaven  below,  the  reminiscences  of  paradise,  these 
foretastes  of  eternity,  all  vilified,  spurned  and  sacrificed  to  that 
prospective  life,  to  that  kingdom  not  of  this  world, — all  swept 
away  by  the  same  torrent  that  bore  off  into  the  region  of  dogma 
whatever  gave  value  and  position,  in  the  divine  economy,  to  the 
things  of  time — the  kingdom,  the  Malchout,  which  is  of  this 
world  indeed,  nay — is  the  world  itself  (Olam  haze)  with  which 
Jesus,  by  an  unmistakable  allusion,  contrasts  another  kingdom 
not  of  this  world. 

WThatever  be  the  value  of  life,  of  this  world,  of  the  existing 
society,  in  them  man  lives,  and  consequently  should  have  some 
rule  of  conduct  with  respect  to  them  ;  this  rule  is  Morality.  Let 
us  haste  to  recognize  it.  The  more  Christianity  subtracts  from 
the  private  affections,  and  the  more  miserly  it  is  at  its  roots,  so 
much  the  richer  and  more  lavish  is  it  towards  those  general 
affections  which  the  increase  and  concentration  of  the  human 
race  call  forth,  and  it  gives  to  the  Church,  to  humanity,  all  that 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  47 

it  takes  from  mem,  family  and  country.  Must  we  not  expect 
this?  Is  it  not  most  natural  that  a  religion  announcing  itself  a 
stranger  to  this  world,  should  exert  its  influence  and  lavish  its 
benefits  upon  the  abstractions  and  generalities  of  this  very  world, 
upon  those  hights  that  divide  heaven  from  earth  ?  In  these 
regions,  however,  Christianity  has  a  morality,  a  grand  morality. 
But  is  it  unknown  or  superior  to  that  of  Judaism  ?  Must  the 
master,  after  having  given  the  pupil  all,  learn  from  him  the 
very  things  that  constitute  his  forte  and  speciality — the  world, 
life,  and  humanity  ? 

We  shall  soon  examine  in  detail  the  greatest  virtues  that  have 
illustrated  the  teachings  of  Christianity.  For  the  present  ws 
shall  confine  ourselves  to  general  rules.  Like  all  religions  and 
philosophies,  Christianity  has  general  maxims  or  principles  that 
seem  the  special  features,  the  germs,  the  creative  elements  of  its 
whole  moral  code.  Judaism,  as  we  are  about  see,  is  rich,  very 
rich  in  generalizations  of  this  kind.  Everything,  to  the  passage 
giving  the  Christian  fundamental  rule,  shows  this.  On  what 
occasion  does  Jesus  give  the  summary  of  the  whole  law  in  the 
love  of  God  and  man?  When  the  scribe,  who  had  heard  him 
dispute,  asked  him,  which  is  the  great  commandment  in  the  law? 
— a  question  indicating  a  habit  of  generalization  on  the  part  of 
the  scribe — then  Jesus  replied :  Tliou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God,  &c.  .  .  .  And  the  second  resembles  the  first :  Love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself.*  An  analogous  passage  occurs  in  Matthew 
vii.  12  :  "Whatever  ye  would  that  men  do  to  you,  do  ye  like- 
wise to  them,  for  this  is  the  Law  and  the  Prophets."  Now  is 
this  method  unknown  to  Judaism  ?  Can  the  Gospel  illustrations, 
in  its  echos  from  the  Bible,  compete  for  beauty,  grandeur  and 
holiness,  with  those  given  us  by  traditional  Judaism  ?  Have  we 
no  maxims,  no  examples  to  vie  with  the  Christian  ethics,  and 
which  can  both  explain  the  origin  of  those  very  Gospel  ideas, 
and  establish  with  still  greater  certainty  the  superiority  of 
Hebrew  ethics  ?  The  reader  will  answer  for  himself  these  ques- 
tions. In  the  monuments  of  tradition,  these  recapitulations  of 
the  law,  these  general  maxims  comprehending  all  the  parts 
with  all  their  beauties,  frequently  occur.  We  shall  spare  the 
reader  these  precepts  thus  crowning  the  law  as  its  full  and^last 
expression — the  Sabbath,  for  example,  the  tzitzit,  and  many 
others.  We  shall  limit  ourselves  to  those — the  most  numerous 
— that  are  exclusively  moral,  and  that  are,  according  to  the 
doctors,  the  key-stone  of  the  law  ;  not  that  they  ever  intended  to 
subordinate  and  perhaps  sacrifice,  after  the  fashion  of  Jesus,  the 

M»rk,  ix 


48  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

ceremonial  law  to  the  purely  rational  ethics,  but  because  they 
regarded  the  latter  as  the  base,  the  indispensable  condition  of 
a  greater  elevation  ;  just  as  in  physics,  animal  life,  instinct,  good 
sense,  reason,  genius,  are  the  several  steps  of  a  ladder  that  we 
must  use  in  succession  to  reach  safely  a  summit.     This  is  exactly 
the  Cabalistic  theory  taught  by  R.  Isaac  Louria's  greatest  dis- 
ciple in  his  Schaari  Kedouscha,  and,  several  centuries  before, 
under  somewhat  more  philosophic  influences,  by  the  author  of 
Cozri.      However,  this  method,  these  maxims  abound  with  the 
doctors.     And,  what  is  remarkable,  they  not  only  make  more 
admirable  ones  for  themselves,  but  they  carry  the  chain  of  their 
tradition,  exclusively  ethical  of  this  generalizing  process,  back  to 
the  prophets,  any  one  of  whom  almost,  would  have  compressed 
the  whole  series  of  God's  commands  into  a  few  striking  maxims 
In  this  way  would  David  present  the  whole  law  in  eleven  com- 
mandments:    "Aim  at  perfection,  do  justice,  speak  truth  accord- 
ing to  your  mind,  slander  not,  injure  no  one,  be  not  ashamed  of 
your  relations,  be  humble,  honor  those  who  fear  God,  swear  to 
your  own  hurt  and  keep  your  oath,  take  no  usury,  take  no  bribe 
to  destroy  the  innocent."    And  similarly  Isaiah  reduced   the 
number  to  six:     "  Be  just,  speak  rightly,  shun  unlawful  gains, 
touch  not  a  bribe,  listen  not  to  counsel  for  blood,  look  not  at 
vice."    And  Micah  simplifies  still  further  the  rules  of  salvation : 
"O  man,  what  does  God  require  of  thee  ?    To  do  justice,  to  love 
mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  Him."    Are  we  done?    Not 
yet.     Amos  advanced  a  step,  and  summed  the  whole  law  in  a 
single  precept,  which  indeed  has  a  strong  resemblance  to  Paul's 
system,  but,  to  our  view,  simply  a  literal  one ;  namely  FAITH.* 
And  should  the  great  Moses  have  been  less  synthetic  than  his 
disciples?     "Do  you  remember"    say  the    Pharisees,    "when 
Moses  said  to  Israel:     'You  shall  follow  your  God  the  Ever- 
lasting,'  Israel  replied:     'Who    can    walk    the    paths    of   the 
Eternal?'    Is  it  not  written,   'The  whirlwind  and  the  tempest 
go  before  him.'  "   And  Moses  replied,  "No;  I  shall  show  you  the 
ways  of  the  Eternal ;  all  his  ways  are  charity  and  truth." 't    Let 
us  pass  to  the  doctors  themselves.    Should  they  be  inferior  to  the 
prophets,   to  the  examples  set  before    them  ?     We   shall   see. 
Simeon,  the  Just,  prior  by  several  centuries  to  the  Master  of 
Nazarath,  and  with  whom  the  Rabbinical  era  just  opens,  declared 
(Torah),  religious  science,  worship  and  charity,  to  be  the  three 
pillars  that  sustain  all  society 4    Have  we  not  here  the  arche- 
types of  the  three  theological  Christian  virtues,  Faith,  Hope, 
and  Charity  ?    I  incline  to  think  so.    The  Hebraic  genius  ever 

*  Talmud,  Maccot,  23,  t  Midrash.  *  Abbot,  chap.  t. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  49 

shows  itself  in  this  f ormtila.  Like  Christianity,  assigning  to  charity 
the  highest  rank,  it  ever  associates  this  virtue  with  science  and  wor- 
ship; science  (knowledge  of  the  Law) ,  which  tends  directly  to  action, 
as  Hillel  says  :  The  ignorant  (boor)  cannot  avoid  sin,  and  his  disciples 
say,  Great  truly  is  science  that,  leads  to  practice;  science  that  leaves  reason 
all  its  rights ;  science,  fruitful,  active,  luminous,  instead  of  that  bar- 
ren, passive,  instinctive,  not  to  say  blind,  faith  that  rules  in  Christ- 
ianity ; — worship,  pious  deeds,  but  always  deeds  instead  of  hope,  a 
virtue  purely  contemplative  and  idle.  Need  we  relate  Hillel's  cele- 
brated answer  to  the  proselyte  ?  Criticism  has  already  seized  it  and 
all  know  it.  Only  let  us  mark  two  circumstances  that  appear  from 
a  comparison  of  Hillel's  saying  with  that  of  Jesus  (Mat.  vii.  12.) 
The  thought,  as  we  know,  is  in  both  cases  the  same  ;  but  the  form 
is  so  too,  and  especially  the  closing  epiphonemas  are  very  similar. 
After  Hillel  said:  What  thou  dislikest  do  not  to  thy  neighbor,  he  added: 
In  this  is  the  whole  Law — Jesus  :  It  is  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  But 
while  Jesus  (or  perhaps  Matthew,  on  account  of  the  Gentiles,  to 
whom  Judaism  was  not  to  be  preached)  stops  here,  Hillel  takes 
care  to  add  :  The  rest  is  but  the  commentary,  go  and  learn  it.  This  is 
not  all.  Christianity,  that  took  this  saying  from  Jewish  tradition, 
imitates  the  Pharisee  Hillel  not  only  in  the  sense  of  the  doctrine, 
but  also  in  its  application,  namely,  to  evangelize  the  Gentiles  ;  for 
it  was  to  a  Gentile,  desirous  of  becoming  acquainted  with  Judaism, 
that  Hillel  summed  it  up  in  the  precept,  Love  thy  neighbor. 

But  years  pass,  every  thing  changes,  dies  ;  country,  independence, 
peace,  happiness,  liberty — Jewish  ethics  alone  survives  unchanged. 
About  two  centuries  after  Hillel  we  get  it  once  more  from  the  lips 
of  the  most  distinguished  doctors.  But  what  gives  special  value  to 
the  maxims  we  are  about  to  read,  is  that  their  authors  were  two  of 
the  four  celebrated  doctors  who  entered  Pardis,  nairely,  two  mas- 
ters venerable  in  cabalistic  science,  whence  Christianity  has  de- 
rived its  dogmas  and  very  probably  its  ethics  also— Essenico-Cab- 
alistic  ethics.  Those  doctors  are,  first,  the  great  Talmudist  and 
martyr  Akiba,  who  teaches  :  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,  this  is  the 
great  principle  of  the  Law;  and  then  his  colleague,  Ben-Azai,  who 
said  :  MAN  WAS  MADE  IN  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD,  this  is  the  great  princi- 
ple of  the  Law  ;  Take  care  then  not  to  say :  As  lam  made  nought  of,  be 
my  brother  also  esteemed  nought ;  as  I  am  cursed,  be  my  brother  also 
cursed;— for  if  thou  doest  so,  know  that  he  whom  thou  despises  and 
curses  is  the  image  of  God  himself* 

Wo  have  seen  from  the  Gospel  itself  (Mark  xii.   28)   how  the 
Pharisees  could  sum  the  whole  Law  in  general  maxims,  and  we 

*  Bereschit  Rabba,  sect  24 


50  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

shall  now  see,  from  the  Gospels  likewise,  the  same  views  exactly 
respecting  those  virtues  by  which  the  Law  was  so  summed.  In 
Mark  as  well  as  in  Luke  is  this  clearly  shown.  In  the  first,  the 
scribe  who  comes  to  question  Jesus, — probably  to  test  his  doctrine, 
as  many  other  passages  lead  us  to  suppose — after  listening  to  him 
to  the  end  says  (xii.  32,  33) :  "  Master,  thou  hast  said  the  truth,  that 
there  is  but  one  only  God  .  .  .  and  that  to  love  God  with  all  the  soul  .... 
and  one's  neighbor  as  one's  self,  is  more  than  all  the  whole  burnt  offerings 
and  sacrifices."  This,  surely,  is  not  the  language  of  a  man  who 
questioned  for  instruction,  but  truly  of  one  who  wished  to  sound 
the  doctrine  of  another,  and  who,  finding  it  in  accordance  with  his 
own  ideas,  repeats  it  under  the  form  we  have  seen.  And  as  far  as 
this  preeminence  over  holocausts  and  sacrifices,  there  is  nothing  that 
does  not  attest  the  originality  of  the  Pharisaical  maxim,  for  these 
are  the  very  terms  we  find  in  the  Talmud,  as  we  are  about 
to  see  when  speaking  of  Charity.*  The  same  conclusion,  clearer 
still  if  possible,  comes  from  Luke,f  where  the  doctor  .of  the  Law, 
instead  of  questioning  Jesus,  is  questioned  himself.  It  is  true  that 
we  read  (x.  25):  "  Master,  what  should  I  do,"  &c.,  TO  TEST  Jessis, 
as  we  are  told  ;  which  indicates  the  scribe's  object  in  Mark.  But  as 
to  the  maxim  itself,  the  doctor  of  the  Law  in  Luke  takes  it  from 
himself,  instead  of  confining  himself  to  an  approval,  as  in  Mark  ; 
for  when  Jesus  asks  (verse  26) :  "  What  is  written  in  the 
Law?"  he  answers,  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  &c., 
and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  ;"  that  is  to  say,  two  precepts  which, 
considering  the  great  distance  that  separates  them  in  the  Law  (one 
in  Leviticus,  the  other  in  Deuteronomy) ,  could  not  have  been 
brought  into  contiguity  by  the  doctor  if  tradition  had  not  anteriorly 
made  them  the  two  inseparable  parts  of  one  formula,  which  the 
doctor  then  only  repeated  for  Jesus.  Thus  the1  Gospels  themselves 
show  the  anteriority  of  generalization  and  of  maxims  in  the  Phari- 
saical school. 

*  Charity  is  greater  than  all  the  sacrifices.  t  Luke  x.  28. 


JETVISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  51 


CHAPTER  Y. 

HUMILITY. 

ABRAHAM  AND  MOSES.— THE  BIBLE.— THE  "POOR  rn  SPIRIT.  "-^THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE 
EARTH  THAT  ABE  TO  BE  THEIE  HERITAGE. — CABALISTIC  SENSE  NECESSARY  FOB  THE 

COMPREHENSION    OF    THE    LAW. — GREATNESS  Of  THE    HUMBLE. — AUTHORITY. — El- 

AMPLE  OP  JESUS. — SUBMISSION  TO  INJURY. — OTHER  BEATITUDES. — THE  PERSECUTED. 
—PRIDE.— ANGEB.— SEBPBNT  AND  DOVB.— THE  CHILD.— SELF-DENIAL.— VOLUXTABY 
POVERTY. 

If  Christian  ethics  boasts  that  it  taught  men  charity,  it  arrogates 
*io  less  the  honor  of  having  taught  them  humility.  It  should,  how- 
ever, remember  that  the  two  greatest  Hebrews, — one  the  spiritual 
father,  the  other  the  political  father  of  ancient  Israel, — are  emi- 
nently and  proverbially  distinguished  for  their  humility.  Abraham 
esteemed  himself  but  dust  and  ashes  (Gen.  xviii.  27);  Moses,  as 
the  Scripture  states  with  singular  precision,  was  the  humblest  of  all 
men  upon  ike  earth :  a  phrase  well  emphasized,  and  showing  the  man 
of  God  in  a  light  not  hitherto  sufficiently  appreciated,  and  that  in- 
vests him,  the  first,  with  that  aureole  of  goodness  and  mildness 
usually  ascribed  only  to  the  son  of  Mary.  But  far  from  that,  the 
latter  is  rather  a  fiery  spirit  in  an  iron  mould  ;  he  preeminently 
possesses  the  will,  force,  and  energy  that  are  bat  apportioned  in 
the  Hebrew  law-giver.  "We  should  gain  too  easy  a  victory  by  con- 
trasting Judaism  with  Christianity  on  the  score  of  humanity.  We 
might  turn  to  the  Bible,  that  abounds  in  passages  where  the  hum- 
ble, the  meek,  the  poor  in  spirit  are  put  at  an  elevation  unknown  to 
the  Gospels.  But  since,  as  we  have  said,  learned  Hebrew  writers 
have  fully  criticized  the  Bible,  and  since  Christianity,  if  not  abso- 
lutely playing  the  part  of  innovator,  has  so  loudly  proclaimed  its 
mission  as  reformer,  as  restorer  of  Biblical  ethics  disfigured  by  the 
Pharisees,  it  is  time  to  sift  its  claims  once  for  all  before  another 
tribunal  besides  the  Church,  to  wit,  that  of  free  Criticism. 

"When  Jesus  uttered  on  the  mountain-top  these  celebrated  words  : 
Happy  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven; 
Happy  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth  ;  and  elsewhere  : 
Learn  of  me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  of  heart,  &c.,  was  this  ^.uything 
new  for  Palestine,  anything  that  was  not  reechoed  each  day  in  its 
temples,  schools,  and  assemblies  ?  A  word  first  upon  the  true-ex- 
position of  the  preceding  f:- \qrments.  No  doubt  but  that  by  "  poor 
in  spirit"  is  meant  the  humbte,  for  quite  similarly  do  the  Rabbis  des- 
ignate them,  nemokerouah  (humble  in  spirit) ,— from  the  literal  trans- 
lation of  which  comes  the  English  phrase — one  of  the  thousand 


52  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

traces  of  the  Babbinico-Aramean  origin  of  the  Gospels,    uut  it  is 
to  the  promise  that  ends  the  verses  we  would  call  attention. 

In  the  first,  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  in  the  second,  they 
shall  inherit  the  earth.  The  latter,  we  remark,  is  but  a  verse  taken 
from  the  Psalms  (Psl.  xxxvii.  11) .  But  is  there  a  real  synonym  in 
these  expressions?  It  is  very  probable  that  there  is,  above  all  if  we 
bear  in  mind  the  sense  we  have  given  to  the  Gospel  "  kingdom  of 
heaven,  "viz.:  that  of  Malchout,  the  last  emanation  of  the  Cabalists, 
their  kingdom  of  heaven.  Now,  this  kingdom  seems  to  be  doubly  iden- 
tified with  the  object  of  Jesus'  promise ;  first  because  it  takes,  in 
preference  to  all  others,  the  name  earth,  synonymous  with  kingdom, 
as  Jesus  uses  it ;  and  again,  because  this  earth,  precisely  as  in  the 
Gospels,  is  promised  by  the  Cabalists  to  the  meek  and  humble. 
And  we  have  but  to  glance  at  the  Zohar — where  averse  almost  iden- 
tical with  that  of  the  Psalm,  Tzadikim  yireschou  aretz,  is  interpreted 
in  the  same  manner,  and  aretz,  earth,  is  said  expressly  to  be  the 
synonym  of  kingdom — to  be  assured  both  as  to  the  sense  we  here 
give  the  Gospel  kingdom,  and  as  to  the  synonyms  of  the  Kingdom  of 
verse  3,  and  the  Earth  of  verse  5.  Besides,  is  it  not  the  most  com- 
mon and  well-known  doctrine  among  the  Cabalists  ?  Is  it  not  the 
Schechina  that  is  called  anava  (humility)  ,*  and  which  explains  Je- 
sus' characteristic  humility,  that  other  incarnation,  that  other  Malc- 
hout  ?  Is  it  not  from  this  that  comes  inspiration  ?  f  Is  it  not  be- 
cause of  their  natural  humility  that  the  poor  are  called  the  temple 
or  car  of  the  Schechina,  of  the  Kingdom  ?  t  Is  it  not  as  a  similar 
term  that  the  Zohar  first,§  and  then  the  Ticounim  ||  call  the  Kingdom 
humility?  Here  doubtless  are  passages  of  great  importance  in  the 
present  question,  and  that  seem  to  confirm  all  our  conjectures. 

But  is  this  idea  itself,  apart  from  all  cabalistic  interpretation, 
unknown  to  Pharisaical  Judaism  ?  Is  this  partiality  for  the  humble, 
is  the  special  aptitude  of  these  to  become  chosen  vessels  for  all  that 
concerns  science,  faith,  and  holiness,  unknown  to  the  Pharisees? 
Far  from  that;  nothing  comes  so  frequently  to  their  lips.  "With 
the  humble  God  makes  his  Schechina  rest,  "ft  Who  is  the  true  sage  ? 
said  an  ancient  doctor;  he  who  may  be  taught  by  all.**  God's 
science  is  not  in  the.  heavens,  said  Moses;  that  is  to  say,  add  the  doc- 
tors, thou  shalt  not  find  it  in  those  whose  pride  reaches  the  sky.ff 
Where,  on  the  contrary,  shall  one  find  it?  in  the  lowly-minded,  like- 
water  that  comes  from  the  mountains  to  sojourn  in  the  valleys.Jt 
One  is  not  ashamed,  they  say  elsewhere,  to  ask  even  an  inferior  for 
water  to  slake  thirst ;  so  the  great  should  not  blush  to  ask  the  mean- 

*  Reschit<!hokma,  schaar-haanava.    t  Ibid.  J  Ibid,  Chap.  I. 

%  Vol.  Ill,  page  230.  II  Reschit  Chokma,  ibid.     H  Sota. 

**  Aboth,  IV.  ft  Talmud,  Treatise  Eroubin,  f.  55.    tt  Taanit,  page  7. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  53 

est  for  information  as  to  the  law.*  Of  this  has  not  Juda  the  Holy, 
set  us  the  most  striking  example  ?  Has  he  not  learned,  as  an  humble 
disciple,  his  own  doctrines  that  he  had  forgotten,  from  the  mouth  of 
a  poor  artisan  ?f  Moreover,  of  the  two  rival  doctrines  of  Hillel  and 
Schammai,  which  one  has  definitely  prevailed  in  Israel  ?  That  of  the 
first,  indeed,  in  consequence  of  his  humility.  He  it  is  whom  they 
propose  as  a  model,  saying  :  Be  humble  always  like  Hillel,  and  not 
overbearing  like  Schammai.  I  But  what  is  of  special  importance  to 
our  subject,  is  that  always  and  everywhere  humility  has  been  con- 
sidered an  indispensable  requisite  for  the  study  of  the  formidable 
mysteries  of  the  Mercaba,  that  is,  as  we  think,  of  the  doctrines  that 
originated  those  of  Jesus.  From  the  most  remote  Tahnudical  times, 
to  the  Cabalists  of  the  middle  ages,  all  with  one  accord  have 
required  of  the  initiated  perfect  humility  above  all  things. 

We  come  now  to  the  greatness  of  the  humble,  of  those  who  are  at 
present  the  last,  and  who  shall  become  the  first,  who  humble  themselves 
now  and  who  shall  be  exalted.^  Is  not  this  a  repetition  of  ancient 
Rabbinical  doctrine  ?  "  What  should  a  man  do  to  win  the  love  of 
mankind?"  asks  Alexander  the  Great  of  the  doctors  of  the  South 
(the  Essenes,  as  we  think) .  Lat  him  hate  dominion  and  authority, 
say  the  doctors.  No,  says  Alexander,  my^  maxim  is  better  than 
yours;  let  him  love  them,  that  he  may  have  the  power  to  serve  men.  || 
Has  not  tradition  preserved  a  favorite  saying  of  the  elder  Hillel, 
long  prior  to  Christianity:  "My  abasement  shall  be  my  elevation, 
and  my  elevation  my  abasement.  "^[  Is  it  not  he  who  said  :  "  He  who 
grows  proud  shall  perish."**  Is  not  the  following  saying  his  master 
Abalion's?  "  Flee  grandeur,  "ff  Has  not  one  of  the  most  ancient 
doctors  said:  "  Ba  humble  even  to  excess,  for  is  not  man's  last  hope 
the  worms  of  his  grave  ?"JJ  Did  not  their  disciples  say:  "  Be  lowly 
....  whoever  humbles  himself  shall  be  exalted,  and  whoever  exalts 
himself  shall  be  humbled. |$  Whoever  makes  naught  of  himself  here 
below  for  the  I^aw's  sake,  shall  be  glorified  hereafter. "||||  To  him 
who  said  he  had  seen  in  a  dream  the  world  reversed,  that  is  to-say, 
the  mountains  down  and  the  valleys  up,  did  they  not  answer:  "  No, 
thou  hast  seen  the  actual  world  ?"^[  And,  in  short,  have  they  not 
summed  the  principle  concisely  thus  :  "  Who  is  great  is  little,  and 
who  is  little  is  great  ?"***  Moreover,  what  splendid  promises  are 
made  them!  What  precious  privileges  are  given  them!  They  shall 
enjoy  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  old  Baraita  of  R.  Pinchas  Ben  Jair 
teaches,  with  whom  .humility  holds  tha  first  rank  of  all  virtues, 

*  Taanit,  I.  f  Nedarim,  IV.  f  Eroubin,  xiii. 

§  Marc.  X,  31,  fcc.  Jl  Talmud,  Tamid..  ^Vayicra,  Rabba,-sect.81. 

**  Aboth,  Chap.  1.  ft  Ibid.  ft  Ibid,  Chap.  IV. 

§§  Talmud,  Eroubin,  fol.  13.    jlil  Talmud,  Berach,  EC.  Iffl  Ibid,  PesahinvfoL  60, 

***  Zohar,  sect  Schelach-leka. 


54  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

"  The  world  to  come,"  reply  the  doctors  of  Palestine  to  those  of 
Babylon,  "  belongs  to  those  who  bend  their  knees,  to  the  humble, 
the  submissive,  to  those  who  meditate  constantly  and  without  being 
vain.*  Their  sins  shall  be  forgiven  who  esteem  themselves  as 
abortions,  as  vile  refuse."f  If  the  fear  of  God  is  the  crown  of 
sages,  it  is  but  the  shoe  of  the  humble  ;  J  their  prayer  shall  be 
granted,  as  they  deem  themselves  but  miserable  flesh."  $  And 
finally,  "  God  himself  shall  be  their  crown."  ||  Was  anything 
stronger  ever  heard  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  or  his  apostles  ? 

Here  a  question  very  interesting  and,  in  more  than  one  way, 
applicable  to  our  subject,  presents  itself.     What  is  the  Gospel  idea 
as  to  sovereign  authority  ?    Doubtless,  in  the  midst  of  paganism, 
that,  in  practice  at  least,  recognized  no  right  but  that  of  force, 
worshiped  divine  right  enthroned,   and  thought  sovereignty  the 
privilege    of  birth,    skill,    or  fortune  only,  the   Gospel  first  pro- 
claimed this   great,  fruitful  idea  that  authority  is  nothing  but  a 
charge,  an  office,  a  servitude.     In$  the  Gospel  we  feel  the  new  doc- 
trine attacking,  in  close  conflict,  the  old,  and  driving  it  to  its  fur- 
thest intrenchments.      Ye  [know,  said  Jesus    to  his  disciples,  that 
the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them,  and  they  that  are 
great  exercise  authority  upon  them.     But  it  shall   not  be  so  among  you  ; 
but  whosoever  will  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be  your  minister;  and 
whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,   let  him  be  your  servant.     A  right 
which,  though  long  a  mere  tkeory,  failed  not  to  temper  occasionally, 
from  the  hight  of  the  Christian  tribunal,  the  rigors  of  despotism, 
that  the  apathy  of   Christianity  as  to   social  life,   had  permitted 
to   the  thrones  of  Europe.      Has  Judaism  ever  taught  anything 
else  ?     Was  the  king  ever  other  than  the  first  subject  of  the  law, 
the  ruler,  in  the  sense  of  the  old  Roman  republic?     Was  royalty, 
according  to  the  great  definition  of  the  doctors,  aught  else  than 
servitude  ?fi    Was  not    David  himself,   that  elect  of    God,   quite 
legally  degraded  to  the  rank  of  simple  citizen,  when  his  popularity 
waned,  and  the  sympathies  of  all  were  on  Absalom's  side  ?    Is  it  not 
true,  what  the  doctors  say,  that  all  human  grandeur  is  bestowed  only 
for  the  weal  of  Israel  ?**  But  Jesus,  it  will  be  said,  points  the  remark  : 
"  For,"  said  he,  "even  the  son  of  man  has  not  come  to  be  served, 
but  to  serve."    And  when  at  table  with  his  disciples  :  "  I  am  in  the 
midst  of  you,  as  one  who  serves."     Now,  is  not  this  still  pure  Phari- 
saism ;  for  here,  too,  God  (whose  character  Jesus  here  assumes)  is 
presented  under  the  humblest  forms,  rendering  personally  to  Israel 
in  the  desert,  all  the  services  that  Abraham  had  rendered  to  the 

*  Talmud.  Sanhed.  t  Ibid,  Bosch,  hasclirfoLlT.         t  MidraBch,  hazita. 

§Talmud,  Sota,  fol.  5.         fllbid   Meghilla,  II  Talmud.  Heroyoth.  foL  10. 

**  Talm.  Berach,  foL  32. 


JEWISH  AXD  CHRISTIAN  ETHI 

angels  in  the  valley  of  Mambre  ?   And  this  is  not 

(as  we  might  show  were  it  the  place)  of  a  reprodi ,^^          _1f-- 

intercourse  with  his   disciples,  of  the   striking   characteristics   of 
ancient  Jewish  history. 

Nothing  is  more  closely  allied  to  humility  than  long-suffering, 
and  nothing,  moreover,  seems  to  be  more  the  specialty  of  the 
gospel  ethics.  Is  this,  indeed,  its  parent?  Has  not  this  ethics 
found  in  Judaism  maxims  already  made,  of  a  character  far  superior, 
of  a  data  far  older  ?  The  famous  precept,  to  offer  the  other  cheek 
when  smitten,  had  been  long  before  suggested  by  his  country's  suf- 
ferings to  Jeremiah,  and  criticism  has  already  noticed  it.  Is  Solo- 
mon's precept  less  precious?  Bz  thy  heart,  he  said,  insensible  to 
what  may  be  said  against  thee,  even  though  thou  shouldst  hear  thy  slave 
curse  thee*  We  shall  not  multiply  citations  from  the  Bible  ;  as  the 
Pharisees  are  on  trial,  they  are  the  persons  accused  of  being  infe- 
rior to  Jesus ;  these  therefore  we  should  ask  for  an  account  of  their 
ethics.  The  world,  they  say,  is  held  together  only  by  the  merit  of 
those  who  close  tlie  mouth  when  disputations  arise.^  And  to  sum  all 
in  one  fine  sentence :  They  who  bzar  injury  wiUiout  returning  it,  they 
wko  hear  themselves  slandered  and  retort  not,  whose  only  impulse  is  love, 
to/to  welcome  with  Joy  the  evils  of  life,  for  them  is  it  written  in  the  proph- 
ets :  Tha  friends  of  God  shall  shine  like  the  sun  in  his  glory.  J 

Let  us  here  briefly  examine  a  few  other  "  beatitudes"  related  to 
the  virtue  of  which  we  treat.  Happy  are  they  who  weep,  said  Jesus, 
"for  they  shall  be  comforted.  Pharisaism  also  had  said  :  "  Whoever 
mourns  for  Jerusalem  shall  share  its-future  joy."g  "  The  tears  of  the 
distressed  reach  easily  the  throne  of  God."||  "  They  are  the  greatest 
help,  the  most  necessary  condition  to  every  prayer.  "<[  And  what  is 
noticeable  is  that  the  acknowledged  chief  of  the  Cabalistic  school, 
R.  Simeon  Ben  Jochai,  is  the  author  of  the  following  maxim  :  Man 
is  not  allowed  to  laugh  unrestrainedly  in  this  world.  Jesus  continues 
(Mat.  v.  7) :  Blessed  are  the  merciful  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy.  And 
the  Pharisees  :  "  Whoever  shows  mercy  shall  g.et  it  from  God;"**  or 
again,  in  a  more  general  way  :  "  As  you  measure,  so  shall  it  be  meted 
unto  you  ;"ff  and  under  this  same  form  we  meet  the  same  thought  in 
the  Gospels.  We  read  also  :  "  Happy  are  the  peace-makers,  for  they 
shall  be  called  children  of  God."  And  this  virtue  is  set  down  by  the 
Pharisees  among  those  that  will  be  rewarded  in  this  life  and  in  the 
next  \%%  Aaron's  distinctive  trait  was  that  he  reconciled  brethren  ; 
this  is  the  virtue  that  Hillel  the  Elder  recommended,  saying  :  "  Be  a 

*  Eccles,  vii.  21.  t  Talmud,  Houllin,  fol.  89.        I  Ibid,  Schab,  fol.  88,  ic. 

§Ibid,  Taanitlv-fol.  30.  II  Ibid,  Baba  metsia,  fol  59.        «f  Treat,  Berachot,  foL  30. 

**  Talmud.  rt  Ibid,  Sota,  foL  8  and  pass.      «  Mischna,  treat,  Peah..  Chap,  L 


56  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

follower  of  Aaron,  loving  peace,  and  seeking  it  everywhere,  loving 
men  and  bringing  them  to  the  Law."* 

Not  all  yet:  Happy,  says  Jesus,  are  they  who  are  persecuted  fof 
Justice'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. —  Wouldst  thou  knowt 
say  the  Pharisees,  how  much  God  loves  the  persecuted  ?  See  the  animals 
he  chooses  for  sacrifice.  Are  there  any  more  persecuted  than  the  sheep, 
the  pigeon,  and  the  dove  ?  Now  God  just  prefers  these  to  all  other  animals. 
But  we  must  not  conceal  that  the  Pharisaical  ethics  not  only 
rivals  that  of  the  Gospels,  but  transcends  it  when  needed.  Jesus 
exclaims  :  "  Happy  those  persecuted  for  the  sake  of  righteousness  ;"  that 
is,  doubtless,  those  persecuted  in  the  wrong,  against  all  justice. 
But  how,  if  the  persecuted  are  guilty  ?  No  one  knows.  As  to  the 
Pharisees,  their  mercy  knows  no  bounds,  their  charity  is  of  a  shade 
so  delicate,  of  a  tenderness  so  fine,  that  misery  makes  them  forget 
all.  They  say,  with  Solomon  :  God  is  found  on  the  side  of  the  perse- 
cuted. Is  it  only,  they  add,  when  the  oppressed  and  the  oppressors  are 
equally  just  or  impious  f  Is  it  only  when  the  oppressor  is  an  unjust  man 
and  the  oppressed  a  just  one  ?  No ;  though  the  oppressor  were  just  and 
the  oppressed  unjust,  God  is  ever  on  the  side  of  the  latter.^ 

*  An  ethics  that  attains  such  hights  has  no  rival  to  fear.  Like  Mo- 
ses, who,  according  to  the  doctors,  strove  with  the  angels,  it  touches 
the  very  throne  of  God. 

If  there  be  a  vice  opposed  to  humility,  it  is  pride  and  anger. 
Though  the  Gospel  condemns  both  by  implication  in  its  exhortations 
to  humility  and  meekness,  it  is  very  far  from  reaching  that  vehe- 
mence of  condemnation  which  the  Pharisees  incessantly  pour  upon 
them  And  we  shall  still  be  told,  that  those  against  whose  pride 
and  inordinate  vanity  Jesus  thought  proper  to  inveigh,  were  the 
holy  doctors  of  Israel !  See  the  proud  !  they  say,  ' '  they  deserve  to 
bo  uprooted  like  idolatrous  groves.  Their  dust  shall  not  rise  on  the 
resurrection  rnorn.J  Though  they  should  have  reconciled  heaven 
and  earth  with  God  (as  did  Abraham) ,  they  could  not  escape  the 
pains  of  hell."3  "  Let  them  be  to  you  as  idolaters,  atheists,  or  the 
incestuous.  The  Scheehina  laments  for  them  ;  they  and  I — it  says — 
cannot  live  together  in  the  world.  "|| 

As  to  the  horror,  in  fact,  with  which  the  Pharisees  regarded  pride, 
we  could  cite  examples  without  end.  One,  I  hope,  will  suffice  to 
show  with  what  sort  of  pride  the  Gospels  reproach  the  Pharisees. 
Habbi  Simeon,  son  of  Gamliel,  and  Rabbi  Ismael,  the  high  priest, 
were  led  to  martyrdom.  The  former  began  to  weep.  "  Simeon,  my 
brother,  why  weepest  thou?"  asked  his  companion;  "two  steps 
more,  and  thou  wilt  be  in  heaven,  beside  thy  fathers."  "Why 

*Aboth,  Chap.  III.      tVayikra  Rabba,  Chap.  27.      J  Sota,  Chap.  I.      §Ibid.      II  Ibid. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  67 

should  I  not  weep,  answered  the  other,  "  when  I  share  the  lot  of 
idolators,  incestuous  people,  homicides,  and  breakers  of  the  Sab- 
bath ?"  "  Has  it  never  happened,"  replied  the  Kabbi,  "  that  some 
one  came  to  consult  thee  on  a  case  of  conscience,  and  that  thy  ser- 
vants, seeing  thee  at  table  or  in  bed,  sent  him  away  ?  "  "  No,"  re- 
plied the  other,  "  they  had  orders  never  to  repel  any  one,  whatever 
the  time  or  circumstance.  But  God  is  just :  once  I  was  seated  at 
my  tribunal  and  the  parties  were  standing  waiting  my  judgment,  j 
showed  on  that  occasion  pride,  and  God  punishes  me  to-day." 

And  does  the  passionate  man  fare  better  ?  Already,  before  Jesus, 
had  the  Bible  condemned  him  ;  the  most  ancient  doctors  had  said  : 
*'  Be  not  given  to  wrath."*  They  refined  soon  upon  the  old  max- 
ims :  "  "Whoever,"  they  tell  us,  "  abandons  himself  to  anger,  has  no 
respect  for  the  Schechina  itself."!  "  If  the  passionate  man  be  a  pro- 
phet his  inspiration  leaves  him  ;  if  a  doctor,  he  forgets  his  learn- 
ing. "J  Who  would  believe  it  ?  The  Pharisees,  all  submissive  as 
they  were  to  the  authority  of  the  Prophets,  hesitated  not  to  write 
these  words  :  "  "Why  was  Elias  snatched  so  soon  from  the  earth? 
Because  he  gave  way  to  anger  and  caused  Baal's  prophets  to  be 
slain.  Then  God  took  him  from  the  world,  saying :  '  The  earth 
needs  not  men  like  thee.' "  $  Jesus  condemns  only  causeless  an- 
ger (Mat.  v.  22) ;  the  Pharisees  condemn  it  even  when  reasonable. 

There  is  a  sentence  in  the  Gospels  connected  with  our  present 
subject.  Sending  his  twelve  disciples  to  preach  to  the  Jews,  Jesus 
cautions  them:  Be  ye  wise  as  serpents  and  innocent  as  doves.  Does 
this  idea,  which  is  not  ignoble  and  lacks  not  finesse  if  only  for  the 
antithesis,  belong  exclusively  to  Jesus  and  the  Gospels  ?  The  Phar- 
isees find  its  elements  in  the  Bible.  In  one  place  they  see  Israel 
compared  to  the  bravest  and  fiercest  carnivora,  to  the  lion,  the  wolf, 
and  especially  the  serpent  ;  in  another  it  is  to  a  dove  God  likens 
his  Church.  Whence  this  contradiction?  "Ah"  !  say  the  doctors; 
"  Israel  is  strong  as  a  lion,  wise  as  a  serpent,  but  also  innocent  as  a 
dove  :  strong  and  prudent  with  wolves  into  whose  midst  he  is  sent, 
to  keep  their  strength  at  bay,  to  thwart  their  crafty  schemes  ;  but, 
innocent  as  the  dove  that  gives  its  neck  to  death,  Israel  goes  joy- 
fully to  martyrdom  for  his  God  and  his  faith.  "|j 

Another  of  Jesus'  favorite  symbols  is  the  child.  David,  many 
ages  before,  had  said  :  '•  O  Eternal,  my  heart  is  not  haughty,  nor 
mine  eyes  lofty,  neither  do  I  exercise  myself  in  things  too  high  for 
me,  but  I  have  considered  my  soul  as  a  child  in  its  mother's  arms." 
(Ps.  131)  The  doctors  went  further  still.  They  placed  the  figure 

*  Abath,  Chap.  II.  t  Talmud,  Nedarim.  j:  Ib.  Pesachun,  f.  «6. 

t  Talmud,  Schabbath,  Chap.  II.       ||  Midrasch,  treat  Schabb,  f.  119. 


58  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

of  a  child  in  the  holy  Mercaba,  beside  the  Cherubs  of  Ezekiel.  They 
taught  that  the  world  has  no  better  stay  than  the  pure  breath  of 
children  ;*  comparing  this  breath  with  that  of  the  holiest  Pharisees, 
they  say:  "Far  different  is  the  breath  that  find?  the  taste  of  sin 
(that  of  the  Pharisees)  from  that  (the  child's)  which  finds  it  not."f 
They  represent  God  as  a  tender  father  pleased  at  their  childish 
studies,  at  their  first  stammerings  in  the  holy  Law  ;  they  esteemed 
their  mind*  the  sharpest  for  heavenly  things,  and  gave  them  priority 
as  totha  revelations  about  the  Red  Sea  and  Sinai,  where,  they  say, 
the  child,  seabed  on  its  mother's  knees,  was  the  first  to  raise  its  head, 
to  recognize  the  Eternal,  and  to  utter  these  words  of  the  Canticle  : 
There  is  my  God,  "  Wouldst  thou  know  how  much  children  are  loved 
by  God  ?  When  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  the  Babylonians,  the 
representatives  of  all  Israel  (who  were  there  for  the  sacrifices) ,  went 
away,  but  the  Schechina  still  remained.  The  Sanhedrim  broken  up, 
the  Scheshina  still  rested  within  its  walls  ;  but  when  the  children 
ware  carried  away  prisoners,  then  the  Schechina  went  with  them, 
for  it  is  written  :  *  Thy  children  have  walked  captives  before  the 
enemy;  then  departed  from  Sion  all  its  glory'  "(Lam.  I,  5-6).  And 
to  sum  all,  the  doctors  arranged  for  the  Synagogue  prayers,  wherein, 
with  the  merits  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  invoked  those  of 
innocent  childhood.  Bat  what  is  at  once  the  type  and  the  explana- 
tion of  Jesus'  partiality  for  children,  is  this  remarkable  statement 
from  the  Zohar  :  Little  children  who  die  young  are  taught  in  Paradise 
by  the  Messiah  himself. 

Another  kindred  virtue  is  truth,  which  Jesus  seems  to  recommend 
by  condemning  duplicity  and  hypocrisy.  Is  this  a  virtue  unknown 
to  the  Pharisees  ?  Truth  !  which,  vriih  justice  and  peace,  as  says  an 
ancient  doctor,  makes  one  of  the  three  pillars  of  society.  J  The  seal 
of  God  is  truth  ;§  a  sublime  saying  that  lifts  us  to  Plato.  Who  shall 
not  see  God's  face  ?  First,  hypocrites,  then  liars.  Imitate,  rather, 
Bab  Safra.  An  article  of  his  was  being  sold  ;  a  higher  price  was 
constantly  offered,  since  the  doctor,  who  was  praying,  would  not 
stop  to  reply.  When  done,  he  said  to  the  buyer,  "  My  friend,  take 
it  at  such  a  price  (a  lower  one) ,  sin33  at  that  I  resolved  to  sail  it.'' 
For  such  a  man,  say  the  doctors, ||  has  David  said,  "  O  God,  who 
shall  be  worthy  to  dwell  in  thy  tabernacle,  upon  thy  holy  mountain  ? 
He  who  speaks  the  truth  in  his  heart."  Is  it  a  virtue  less  needful  to 
the  Pharisees  ?  Hear  then  :  "  Let  man  be  ever  submissive  to  God's 
will,  in  private  as  well  as  in  public"  (repeated,  from  a  very  old  text, 
every  day  by  the  Israelite) .  "  The  doctor,  whose  interior  is  not  as 
his  exterior,  deserves  not  the  title,  doctor,  "ft  He  should  be  cast 

*  Talmu  1,  trait.  Schabb,  f.  119.    t  Talmud,  trait.  Schabb,  f.  119.     t  Aboth,  Chap.  I. 
g  Yoma,  f  jl.  69,  &c.  0  Talmud,  Baba,  Bathr.,  f.  88,  &c.    If  Yoma,  f.  72. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  59 


to  tho  do'p.*  Let  him  beware  of  all  lyin-j,  evan  of  telling  a  child, 
"  I  shall  givo  tli  3  3  something,"  if  he  msaris  not  to  give ;  for  he 
would  lie  and  teach  the  child  to  lie.f  Is  more  wanted?  Wo  meet 
nothing  till  we  reach  the  simile  by  which  Jesus  expresses  the 
hyp02risy  of  the  psuedo-Pharisees,  viz.,  whitened  sepulchres.  This 
is  found  in  the  oldest  Pharisaism,  and,  moreover,  is  applied,  just  as 
Jesus  applies  it,  to  falsa  Pharisees.  Gamliel  (the  same,  perhaps, 
who  taught  Saul)  having  withheld  the  right  of  entrance  to  the 
academy  from  every  Pharisee  whose  sincerity  was  not  well  known, 
whose  iitside  WT.S  not  as  his  outsi<3,e  (in  the  words  of  the  Babbies), 
reproved  himself  for  his  severity,  saying,  "  Alas!  perhaps  I  have 
deprived  soma  noble  soul,  hidden  in  the  miss,  of  the  word  of  God." 
To  calm  his  scruples,  he  was  shown,  in  a  dream,  whitened  barrels  full 
of  ashes,  and  a  voice  said  to  him  :  "  These  are  the  Pharisees  whom 
thou  hast  repelled." 

The  love  of  truth  brings  us  to  self-denial,  one  of  those  virtues 
most  recommended  in  the  Gospels.  He,  we  are  told  (John,  XII,  25) , 
who  loves  his  own  life  shall  lose  it ;  but  he  who  despises  it  shall  find  it  in 
life  eternal ;  and  Paul  to  the  Romans  (VIII,  13):  "If  ye  live  after 
the  flesh  ye  shall  die ;  but  if  ye  mortify  the  lusts  of  the  flesh  through 
the  spirit  ye  shall  live."  Could  both  be  ignorant  of  a  tradition  current 
in  Judea  from  Alexander's  time  ?  The  so  n  of  Philip  was  not  above 
putting  some  questions  to  the  doctors  of  the  South  (very  probably 
the  Essenes),  and  among  others  the  following :  "What  should 
man  do  to  live?  Let  him  die.  And  what  should  he  do  to  die? 
Let  him  live,  they  replied. "%  Where  shall  you  find  the  Law?  In 
him  who  fears  not,  for  its  sake,  utter  privation, $  who  hesitates  not 
to  be  esteemed  a  fool,||  and  to  sacrifice  for  it  life  itself.^  "  He  who 
is  worthy  of  being  my  follower,"  said  Jesus,  "  must  brave  all  suffer- 
ing." "  Whosoever  takes  not  up  his  cross  to  follow  me,  is  not 
worthy  of  me."  It  is  from  Pharisaism,  evidently,  that  he  takes  this 
language,  while,  however,  supplanting  the  Law,  truth,  justice, 
G)d  (alone  worthy,  according  to  the  doctors,  of  every  sacrifice) ,  by 
his  personality,  bythe  /of  Jesus.  W  The  carrying  of  his  cross,  scarcely 
reaches  the  idea  of  the  cross,  that  his  masters,  the  Pharisees,  long 

*  Talmud.  t  Succa,  f.  46.  J  Talmud,  tr.  Tamid,  Chap.  IV, 

§  Sota,  Chapter  2.  II  Ibid.  ^  Talmud,  Berach,  63,  &c. 

**  Ibid.  Trait.  Berachot,  fol.  5. 


[  1.  ]  And  truly,  whatever  he  lacked  of  self-glorification  and  self-sufficiency,  his  follow- 
era,  putting  him  in  tho  very  stead  of  God  and  calling  him  (Rev.  XII,  13)  the  Alpha,  and 
Omr.ga,  (a.  phrase  applicable  exclusively  to  the  Deity,  seelsa,  XLIV,  6),  have  amply  supplied. 
Whether  or  not  such  an  arrogation  be  a  breach  of  the  first  Commandment,  a  consideration 
of  Isaiah,  Chapter  42,  8,  "  I  am  the  Lord,  that  is  my  name  ;  and  my  glory  will  I  not  give  to 
another;"  and,  43, 10th  and  llth  verse,  "and  besides  Mt  there  if  no  Savior,"  may  help 
Christians  to  decide.— [Tram. 


60  JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS. 

oefore  expressed.  Who,  for  them,  is  Isaac  carrying  the  wood  for  - 
his  own  pyre '?  He  is  the  mail  bearing  the  cross.  Is  there  aught  in 
this  world  finer,  dearer,  more  sacred  than  country,  than  the  Law  , 
(Thora),  than  Heaven  (  Olam  Jiabba)?  Well !  neither  Law,  country, 
nor  heavenly  bliss  can  be  gained  without  grief,  suffering  and  self- 
denial.**  And  who  is  the  author  of  this  great  truth  !  Rabbi  Simeon, 
Ben  Jochai,  the  man  whose  teachings  have  inspired  all  Christianity, 
its  dogmas  as  well  as  its  ethics.  And  what  commentary  on  this  law 
of  self-denial  more  quick  than  the  history  of  Judaism  !  God  "shows 
his  goodness  even  to  the  thousandth  generation  of  those  who  love 
him,"  says  Moses.  Who  loves  him,  adds  the  Mekhilta,  better  than 
Israel,  who  died  a  thousand  times  for  him  ?  Why  art  thou  led  to 
the  scaffold? — Because  I  circumcised  my  child.  Why  art  thou 
nailed  to  the  cross? — Because  I  have  obeyed  the  commands  of  the 
Most  high.  Why  art  thou  whipped  ? — Because  I  have  taken  up  the 
loulab  (palm-branch) 

In  vain  does  Christian  ethics,  as  if  to  defy  the  ancient  ethics  of 
Israel,  raise  the  standard  of  its  requirements  ;  it  finds  the  latter  al- 
ways beyond  it.  To  the  rich  man,  who  asks  to  follow  him,  Jesus 
says:  "  Go  sell  all  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor  ;  it  is  harder  for  a 
rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  than  for  a  camel  to  pass 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle."  We  do  not  here  investigate  the  effect 
of  this  condemnation  of  wealth  upon  social  life.  We  know  that  when 
Christianity  saw  not  the  era  of  the  resurrection  dawning  as  quickly 
as  it  expected,  when,  with  good  grace  or  with  bad,  it  found  itself 
engaged  in  our  actual  life,  with  its  needs,  demands,  and  future,  it 
took  care  to  distinguish  counselirom  precept,  and  simply  recommend- 
ed voluntary  poverty.  If  we  were  examining  this  aspect  of  the 
question,  we  should  remark  that  so  absolute  a  judgment  from  Jesus 
against  the  rich  and  riches,  that  the  constant  and  general  practice 
in  the  primitive  church  of  each  one's  selling  his  property  and  lay- 
ing it  at  the  feet  of  the  apostles  (as  in  the  terrible  example  of  Ana- 
nias and  Saphira) ,  do  not  permit  us  to  make  any  sort  of  distinction. 
If  we  are  deeply  convinced  of  anything  it  is  that,  as  Jesus  pre- 
tended to  make  the  highest  and  most  exceptional  Pharisaical  doc- 
trines common  property,  so  he  pretended  to  impose  on  mankind 
those  exceptional  virtues,  those  heroic  acts,  that  ascetic  morality, 
that  absolute  self -detachment  of  which  the  greatest  Pharisees  often 
gave  examples ;  in  short,  to  bestow  upon  the  Pagan  masses  the  the- 
ology and  ethics  of  the  Mystics,  and  to  stifle  the  world  in  an  Essenic 
cloister 

These  examples,  however,  exist.  Useless  to  name  the  Bekabites 
who,  from  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  at  the  command  of  the  prophet, 
renounced  the  holding  of  personal  property  ;  or  the  Essenes  (whose 


JEWISH  AND   CHPJSTIAN   ETHICS.  61 

connection  with  the  former  is  nearer  than  is  supposed)  -who  imi- 
tated them  in  this  point  as  in  others  still.  But  how  pass  over  the 
examples  furnished  us  by  the  history  of  the  Pharisees  ?  Monobaza, 
King  of  Adiabene,  brought  up  in  Pharisaism,  though  keeping  his 
throne,  learned  doubtless  from  this  school  to  give  alms  royally  ;  in 
years  of  famine  he  opened  the  royal  wealth  to  all  his  subjects,  and  the 
remarks  of  courtiers  only  brought  upon  them  that  noble  response  to 
which,  when  speaking  of  charity,  we  shall  soon  revert.  Could  we, 
without  injustice,  suppress  names  as  ancient  as  venerable  ?  Was  it 
from  the  Gospels  that  the  ancient  doctor  Eleazar  of  Bartotha  learned 
to  give  his  substance  to  the  poor,  to  such  a  degree  that  the  almoners 
carefully  avoided  him,  lest  they  should  deprive  him  of  his  scant  daily 
earnings  ?  Was  it  from  Jesus,  whom  he  long  preceded,  that  Hillel 
learned  to  divide  men  into  four  classes  according  to  each's  love  of 
riches,  and  to  rank  him  who  said,  "  Mine  is  thine,  even  as  is  thine 
own,"  with  Hasid,  a  name,  as  we  think,  indicative  of  the  Essenes  ? 
Was  B.  Isbab,  who  gave  his  blood  for  his  country  and  all  his  goods 
to  the  poor,  taught  by  Christianity  ?  Was  that  Babbi  Johanan  a 
Christian,  who,  walking  with  his  disciples  between  Tiberias  and 
Sipporis,  pointed  now  to  a  cornfield,  now  to  an  olive  grove,  now  to 
a  vineyard,  saying,  I  have  sold  all  to  devote  myself  to  the  study  of  the 
Law ;  and  who  said,  smiling,  to  his  disciple  Hiya  Bar  Abba  (who 
wept  because  he  had  "reserved  nothing  for  his  old  age  ") :  "My 
son  Hiya,  thinkest  thou  not  that  I  have  made  a  good  bargain? 
I  have  exchanged  things  that  were  made  in  six  days  for  those  that 
took  forty  days  and  as  many  nights?"  The  text  adds  :  "  When 
Babbi  Johanan  died,  his  cotemporaries  applied  to  him  this  verse 
of  the  Canticle:  Ma*  gives  all  for  love;  Rabbi  Johanan  gave  all  for  the 
Law. 

Are  these  but  rare  examples  ?  What  we  have  said  elsewhere  of 
the  Essenes  forbids  us  to  think  so.  But  the  moral  contagion  that 
had  seized  the  Jewish  masses,  the  renunciation  of  all  wealth,  volun- 
tary poverty,  this  communism  of  love,  went,  it  seems,  so  far  in  Pales- 
tine, that  a  law  had  to  interpose.  The  practical  sense,  sociability, 
and  moderation  of  the  Judaic  spirit  soon  set  the  law  (that  idol 
of  the  Jews)  between  generosity  and  self-spoilation.  And  this 
protective  law  was  enacted  at  Ouscha  where  the  doctors,  meeting 
to  put  a  stop  to  this  barren  frittering  of  the  public  wealth,  decreed 
that  it  was  unlawful  for  any  one  to  give  in  alms  more  than  a  fifth  of 
his  property  ;  an  enormous  figure,  and  one  which  well  attests  the 
force  and  demands  of  that  public  spirit  to  which  the  doctors  dared 
not  concede  less  than  a  fifth,  so  irresistible  in  Israel  was  the  impulse 
to  Charity! 


62  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 


CHAPTER  VI 


ACCUSATIONS  OF  JESUS.  —  THEY  STRIKE  AT  THE  BIBLE  AS  WELZ,  AS  AT  THE  PHAKISEES.  — 
Crm,  LAW  AND  MOBAL  LAW;  NECESSITY  OP  DISTINGUISHING.  —  CUPIDITY  AND 
ANGER  CONDEMNED  BY  THE  PHARISEES.  —  THEIR  EXPANSION  or  THE  DECALOGUE. 
SUPPOSED  SUPERIORITY  OF  GOSPEL  CHARITY.  —  GOD  is  CHARITY.  —  HEBREW  CHARITY; 

DISTINCT     FROM    ALMS    WHICH    IT    EXCLUDES.—  THE     THREE   ENEMIES.—  WHO   THE 

ENEMY  ACCORDING  TO  THE   GOSPEL  —  COUNTRY  AND   SOCIETY  IN  CHRISTIANITY.— 
PARABLE  OF  THE  SAMARITAN. 

We  have  written  the  word  charity.  If  there  be  any  pretention 
dating  from  the  founder  of  Christianity,  it  is  unquestionably  that 
of  having  supplanted  the  Law,  the  faith  of  Israel,  by  charity. 
One  has  but  to  g  anceat  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew  to  see  this  pre- 
tention to  superiority,  so  lauded  since.  It  is  curious  to  see  how  the 
emphasized  protestations  of  Jesus  against  a  desire  to  abolish  the  Law 
blend  with  his  assumption  of  superiority  to  it;  a  tendency  not  to  be 
denied,  and  one  which  he  hides  with  difficulty  under  the  idea  of  a 
moral  progress.  "  Think  not  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  Law  or  the 
prophets  ;  I  am  come  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill  them"  (verse  17)  . 
He  explains  this  in  detail  in  verse  21:  "Ye  have  heard  that  it  was 
said  by  them  of  old  time,  thou  shalt  not  kill  .  .  .  £c  ;  but  I  say  unto 
you,  that  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall 
be  in  danger  of  the  judgment  ;  and  whoever  shall  say  to  his  brother, 
Kaca,  (wicked  one)  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council  ;  but  whosoever 
shall  say,  thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire."  And  further 
on  (verses  27  and  28)  :  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of 
old  time,  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery;  but  I  say  unto  you,  £c." 
It  is  this  perpetual  opposition,  established  by  Jesus,  between  the 
requirements  of  the  Old  Law  and  those  of  the  new  Covenant,  that 
we  are  about  to  examine.  Is  not  the  design  of  this  Law  to  protect 
the  life,  the  character,  or  the  property  of  man  in  the  social  state  ? 
And  would  not  an  injury  to  them  be  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  sim- 
plest duties  of  charity  ?  Ought  we  not  see  if  Judaism  be  really 
guilty  of  so  grave  omissions,  before  asking  it  how  it  has  provided  for 
the  performance  of  the  positive  duties  of  charity?  Should  not  accu- 
sations be  rebutted  before  preferring  one's  claims  to  the  gratitude  of 
mankind?  We  are  sorry  to  say  that  these  charges  could  not  be  more 
formally  made  than  in  the  words  of  Jesus;  Judaism  could  not  be 
more  directly  accused,  or  its  honor  more  assailed.  Is  it  only  tradi- 
tion and  the  Pharisees  that  are  struck  at  ?  Impossible  ;  the  20th 
verse,  that  seems  to  warrant  this  doubt,  is  but  a  bait  for  the  igno- 


JEWISH  AND   CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  63( 

rant.  The  idea  of  progress,  and  consequently  of  imperfection, 
about  which  we  have  spoken,  above  all  those  solemn  words,  "  You 
have  heard  what  they  said  in  old  time,"  exclude  the  supposition  of 
the  Pharisees  merely  ;  and  the  Bible  texts  themselves,  cited  as  proof 
of  imperfection,  cap  the  impossibility  of  a  construction  that  some- 
times seems  favorable  for  a  Christian  apology.  It  is  then,  beyond 
doubt,  that  the  Bible,  Moses,  God  himself  are  arraigned,  and  we 
might  be  tempted  to  let  Christian  ethics  kill  itself  by  that  surcharge 
of  vanity  which  mines  baneath  itself  a  pit,  wherein  its  own  titles  and 
very  foundation  can  forever  disappear.  The  imputation  is,  however, 
so  bold  and  so  opposed  to  the  plainest  facts,  that  it  will  not  be  with- 
out use  in  this  long-vexed  question  to  see  how  they  have  managed 
to  foist  upon  the  world  notions  that,  even  to-day,  are  not  quite  dis- 
sipated. 

As  we  have  said  before,  we  must,  if  we  -would  avoid  error,  care- 
fully distinguish  between  two  things  in  Judaism.  There  is  the 
civil  law,  that  shields  the  life,  honor,  and  property  of  the  citizen, 
and  whose  administration  is  confined  to  the  Courts.  And  there  is 
the  moral  law,  the  duties  whereof,  a  thousand  times  recalled  in  the 
Bible,  are  naturally  set  forth  in  tradition  and  in  the  teachings  of 
the  doctors.  A  double  law  corresponding  to  the  two-fold  character 
of  the  Jews,  to  their  polity  and  to  their  religion.  The  one  is  best 
represented  by  the  Mosaic  code,  the  other  by  the  prophets  first  and 
by  the  doctors  afterwards.  Would  it  be  right  to  judge  of  Jewish 
ethics  by  the  law  of  Moses?  As  well  expect  ,to  find  French  mo- 
rality in  the  Code  civil,  or  English  morality  in  the  Magna  Charta  ! 
No  conclusion,  then,  could  be  come  to  against  Judaism  as  long  as 
we  limited  ourselves  solely  to  the  Mosaic  code. 

But  even  within  those  just  limits,  can  we  say  that  Jesus  is  right  ? 
Is  the  superiority  of  his  ethics  to  the  Mosaic  Law  well  established  ? 
No.  If  there  be  any  point  where  these  two  constituents  of  Israel- 
itic  life,  Jos f ice  and  Charity  intersect,  where  the  character  of  the 
former  is  more  closely  moulded  to  that  of  the  latter,  where,  in 
short,  the  law  is  eminently  charitable,  it  is  precisely,  we  must  say, 
where  Jesus  selects  the  battle-ground  for  the  two  contending  sys- 
tems. Assuredly  he  could  have  made  no  worse  choice.  Let  us 
see. 

Matt.  V:  25: — "Ye  have  heard  what  was  said  by  them  of  old 
time  :  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  ;  but  I  say  unto  you  whosoever 
looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  committed  adultery 
with  her  already  in  his  heart."  Now,  we  need  not  search  far  to  find 
in  the  decalogue  itself,  the  Tenth  Commandment  interdicting  the  de- 
sire spoken  of  by  Jesus.  Was  it  calumny,  or  forgetfulness  on  his 
part  ?  We  think,  neither.  The  key  to  the  enigma  is,  we  think, 


64  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

this  :  Tradition,  while  preserving  the  full  force  of  the  said  com- 
mandment, while  giving  the  widest  and  most  absolute  interpreta- 
tion to  that  of  Deuteronomy,  subjected,  however,  that  of  Exodus 
(expressed  differently)  to  one  condition  (so  that  the  violator  could 
be  prosecuted,  which  for  a  mere  desire  or  intention  could  not  have 
been  done) ,  namely  :  to  that  of  actual  commission.  Then  and  then 
only  could  the  civil  law  interpose  ;  then  only  could  there  be  adul- 
tery, and  not  after  a  mere  desire,  as  Jesus  asserts.  This  is  the 
strange  abuse  which  the  Gospel  makes  of  the  Pharisaical  exposition. 
Far  from  abating  the  severity  of  the  Mosaic  Code,  the  doctors  only 
regulated  the  action  of  the  Courts,  established  impassable  limits  for 
human  laws  by  carefully  distinguishing  what  is  cognizable  by  the 
interior  Court,  where  God  alone  presides,  from  the  overt  act  cognizable 
by  the  magistrate.  Have  they  subtracted,  thereby,  aught  from  the 
weight  of  the  precept  of  Deuteronomy,  where  the  verbage  assumes, 
to  their  view,  quite  a  different  latitude?  In  no  wise ;  and  the  proof 
is  the  rigor  of  their  own  morals  as  to  all  kinds  of  impudicity.  To 
look  on  a  woman  with  lust,  to  look  at  one  of  her  fingers  even,  her 
hair,  to  listen  to  her  song,  &c.,  all  this  was  for  the  Pharisees  not 
indeed  adultery,  but  grave  sin  ;  which  still  gives  but  a  faint  idea  of 
their  austerity  in  this  respect.  What  precept  can  be  more  severe 
than  this  :  If  thy  right  eye  make  a  slip,  tear  it  out  and  cast  it  from 
tliee  ;  for  it  is  better  that  one  of  thy  members  perish  than  that  thy  whole 
body  b-2  ca^t  into  hell.  Well,  before  this  precept  was  even  written, 
before  Origen's  strange  application  of  it,  Judaism  venerated  the 
chief  Pharisee  at  Rome,  the  hero  Rabbi  Mathia  Ben  Haras,  who, 
tormented  by  temptation,  tore  his  eyes  out,  to  be  rid  of  it. 

Were  there  no  other  proofs,  Jesus  himself  could  give  us  some. 
For  the  worst  accusation  that  Pharisaism  could  imagine  against  its 
formidable  foe,  was  that  he  one  day  said  of  some  lovely  Madeline, 
"  What  fine  eyes  that  girl  has."*  When  one  sees  in  this  a  grave 
fault,  a  crime,  one  is  far  from  a  moral  laxity.  One  remark  still 
remains  as  to  the  term  adultery  which  Jesus  gives  to  a  mere 
desire.  What  we  are  about  to  read  will  prove  that,  forget- 
ting the  civil  character  of  the  Mosaic  code,  he  not  only  charges 
this  code  with  the  crime  of  neglecting  to  legislate  for  ethics, 
but,  by  a  deplorable  confusion  of  ideas,  he  substitutes  ethics 
and  intention  or  desire  for  the  Law  and  the  overt  act,  giving 
them  the  gravity  and  even  the  penal  obligation  of  the  latter, 
just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  he  absolves  the  actual  adulteress  by  a 
mere  word  ;  a  double  and  grave  abuse  which  Jesus'  successors  but 
too  well  perpetuated 

*  Talmud  Sanhed,  f  .  107. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  65 

Tims  (Mat.  V,  21,  22)  he  says  :  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said 
by  them  of  old  time,  thou  shalt  not  kill;  and  whosoever  shall  kill 
shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment;  but  I  say  unto  you  tliat  whosoever 
is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judg- 
ment;  and  whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother  Raca  shall  be  punished  by 
the  Council,  bn(  whosoever  shall  say  thou  fool,  shall  be  punished  by  hell- 
Jirc"  Before  examining  the  injustice  of  this,  let  us  see  what  it  has 
too  much  or  too  little.  Causeless  anger  is  forbidden;  and  should 
provoked  anger  be  not  so  too  ?  Pharisaical  morality  avoids  well 
this  restriction — that  would  allow  every  one  to  justify  his  anger — by 
forbidding  all  anger.  But  what  is  there  too  much  in  the  sentence  of 
Jesus?  Clearly  a  disregard  of  the  most  natural  distinction  (one 
that  Judaism  never  omits  to  make)  between  justice  and  charity,  be- 
tween the  civil  code  and  the  ethics.  Jesus  will  not  have  it.  He  sends 
the  passionate  man  to  the  judgment,  just  as  he  does  the  homicide  in 
the  preceding  verse.  The  man  who  says  Raca  to  his  brother,  shall 
be  punished  ly  the  Council.  "Where  is  the  code  that  would  sanction 
such  enormities  ?  Where  is  the  law  that  would  prosecute  anger  or 
cite  to  its  bar  him  who  should  call  any  one  a  fool  or  empty -head 
(Raca)?  And  is  this  the  fault  in  the  law  of  Moses?  In  truth,  it 
should  be  proved  that  it  provided  not  against  such  dispositions.  But 
it  is  not  alone  the  excess,  but  also  the  confusion  of  punishments  for 
which  the  verse  is  remarkable.  Prison  and  liell  are  there  thrown 
pell-mell  from  a  hand  that  seems  in  haste  to  punish,  to  refine  on 
the  old  Mosaic  justice,  rather  than  guided  by  prudence  or  justice. 
For  anger  and  the  epithet  raca,  the  civil  courts;  for  the  epithet  fool, 
hell-fire.  What  confusion,  what  a  jumbling  of  religion  and  the 
penal  code,  of  demons  and  policemen,  of  hell  and  prison?  And  the 
last  jumble  already  marks  the  future  and  is  the  first  step  to  the 
auto-da-fes,  to  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisition.  In  short,  Jesus,  as 
far  as  sending  to  hell  the  man  who  calls  his  neighbor  a  fool  is  con- 
cerned, is  not  mistaken  as  to  jurisdiction.  But  having  come  to  this, 
what  we  should  examine  is,  if  Judaism,  making  the  proper  distinc- 
tion between  the  civil  code  and  the  ethical,  has  anything  to  learn, 
to  envy  in  an  ethics  that  wants,  at  any  price,  to  be  thought  neic. 
We  think  not.  Doubtless  the  Mosaic  code  could  not  legislate  against 
evils  of  a  purely  spiritual  character.  Moral  derelictions  are  so  well 
condemned  by  the  examples  of  our  great  men,  by  general  precepts 
to  love,  charity,  justice,  &c.,  that  one  could  not  accept  or  love  the 
Bible  without  hating  all  kinds  of  vice  or  passion.  But  we  should 
seek  in  vain  for  special  condemnations  of  them ;  for  the  Pentateuch  is, 
as  we  have  said,  but  (chiefly)  a  civil  code,  while  ethics  is  the  concern 
of  tradition  and  the  doctors.  And  is  this  last,  taken  in  its  own  proper 
sphere,  less  pure  and  elevated  than  that  of  the  Gospels  ?  Are  moral 


66  JEWISH  AND  -  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS 

vices  and  faults  less  severely  condemned  there  than  in  the  Gospels  ? 
But  there  are  none  of  those  minutiae,  of  those  refinements  on  ethics 
wherein  the  Gospel  affects  pre-eminence,  of  which  the  types  and  ori- 
gins may  not  be  found  in  the  old  Pharisaical  morality.  Needless 
to  say  that  the  term  impious  given  to  a  man,  is  sufficient  cause  for 
citation  before  the  Council  ;*  that  the  mere  lifting  of  one's  hand 
against  another,  without  striking,  is  called  impiety,  and  is  punish- 
able by  the  courts  ;f  that  anger  is,  on  one  side,  compared  to  suicide,^ 
for,  as  says  the  Talmud,  it  is  of  the  passionate  man  that  the  prophet 
has  said:  "  Depart  from  him  who  wounds  himself  by  anger,"  and 
that,  on  the  other  side,  it  is  ranked  with  homicide  (not  always  cog- 
nizable by  the  Courts) ,  if  it  is  carried  so  far  as  to  make  its  object 
blush,  so  that,  as  say  the  doctors,  "  the  white  and  red  alternate  on 
his  face,"§  even  though  the  reproaches  had  reference  to  the  guilt  of 
some  great  crime.  But  what  is  truly  remarkable,  and  what  wrests 
from  the  hands  of  Christian  ethics  the  scepter  it  has  usurped,  is 
that,  of  all  enormous  crimes,  the  only  ones  that  form  an  exception 
to  the  great  Jewish  principle  of  non-eternity  of  punishment,  are  three 
against  morality,  and  the  first  two  are  the  objects  of  these  evangeli- 
cal imprecations.  "Though  one  were  the  greatest  sinner  in  the 
world,"  say  the  Pharisees,  "hell  cannot  hold  him  forever  ;  all  shall 
one  day  see  the  light  of  Heaven  and  Paradise."  Do  you  know  who 
shall  never  see  it?  He  who  calls  his  neighbor  a  bad  name,  he  who 
makes  his  neighbor  blush  by  scandalous  proposals,  and  the  adulterer. 
This  is  the  ethics  of  those  formulistic  Pharisees,  those  adorers  of 
the  letter,  of  those  heartless  men  whom  the  Gospel  paints  for  us. 
This  is  the  mould  from  which  the  Gospel  ethics  copied  the  raca,  the 
fool,  sent  by  it  to  the  galleys  or  hell's-fire.  Is  this  all  ?  No  ; 
Pharisaical  ethics  is  so  refined,  so  delicate,  has  such  exquisite  shades 
that  no  rival  whatever  could  be  found  for  it.  "Better  that  a  man 
throw  himself  into  a  burning  furnace  than  make  his  fellow-man 
blush  before  the  world. "||  And  who  is  the  author  of  this  saying  ? 
He  who  is  the  best  representative  of  the  school  from  which  Chris- 
tianity, as  we  have  reiterated,  has  drawn  its  dogmas  and  ethics — 
Babbi  Simeon  Ben  Jochai.  "  Whosoever  shall  make  his  brother 
blush,  shall  himself  blush  when  the  angels  repel  him  from  the  man- 
sion of  the  Most  High.H""  The  most  precious  benediction  which 
the  Pharisees  gave  their  disciples  was  :  "  God  be  thanked  that  thou 
never  hadst  reason  to  blush  or  madest  another  do  so."**  And  an 
old  rabbinical  text,  says:  "He  who  profanes  holy  things,  who 
despises  solemnities,  who  annuls  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  our 

*  Talmud,    t  Ibid,     t  Talmud  and  Zohar,flct.  Tetzave.    §  Talmud,  Baba,  Metzia,  f.  58. 

N  Ib.,  Sota^ol.  10.      <U  Massecbet,  Kalla.  **  Moed  Eatan,  f.  9. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  67 

father,  who  gives  a  false  sense  to  the  law,  wlw  makes  his  neighbor 
blush  (literally,  grow  pale)  in  public,  shall  have  no  part  in  the  world 
to  come.  Not  from  Jesus  but  from  the  Pharisees  comes  this. 

There  are  several  other  points  in  which  Jesus  attempts  to  estab- 
lish the  superiority  of  his  code  to  the  old.  Though  our  preceding 
remarks  are  no  less  applicable  to  the  whole  tenor  of  his  teaching, 
we  shall  not  examine  the  latter  at  this  moment,  as  not  bearing 
directly  upon  charity.  The  laws  of  divorce,  oaths,  and  retaliation 
must  then  wait  their  turn;  but  we  would  now  compare  the  ideas  of 
the  old  law  with  those  of  the  new  respecting  the  love  of  one's  neigh- 
bor. 

We  would  first  ask,  why  does  Jesus — taking  the  second  part  of 
the  Decalogue  in  his  comparisons  as  to  homicide,  adultery,  false 
swearing — omit  to  mention  theft,  commercial  deceit  ?  In  this  case, 
as  he  has  done  in  the  others,  he  could  have  refined  upon  the  legal 
enactments  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  gained  the  easy  victory  that 
even  the  poorest  moralist  can,  over  the  dry  prescriptions  of  the 
civil  and  criminal  code.  Perhaps  he  saw  tradition  lifting  itself 
with  full  force  to  supply  amply  the  needs  of  the  strict  Mosaic  law. 
However  that  be,  we  ought  to  show  the  reader  the  wonderful 
expansion,  or  rather  fecundation  effected  by  tradition  upon  the 
law  of  Moses.  We  must  see  what  those  dry,  bare  formulas,  steal 
not,  cJieat  not,  become  under  the  breath  of  tradition,  as  we  have  had 
a  specimen  in  the  two  commandments — thou  shalt  not  kill,  and 
thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

In  the  eye  of  tradition,  he  who  gains  the  public  favor  by  feigned 
virtue,  by  imposture,  is  a  thief.  To  press  your  hospitality  on  any 
one  without  seriously  meaning  to  give  it,  to  make  great  offers, 
knowing  that  they  will  not  be  accepted,  is  always,  as  the  ancient 
Tossifta  declares,  to  steal  in  some  fashion.  Would  it  be  more 
excusable,  perchance,  in  the  sight  of  the  Eternal  ?  Error  to  think 
so.  "  Whosoever  steals  the  esteem,  the  good  opinion  of  his  crea- 
tures, steals  the  esteem  of  the  Most  High  ;"  to  take  advantage  of 
an  ambiguity,  to  get  a  credit  one  does  not  deserve,  is  just  simply  to 
steal.  "  If  thou  hast  a  torn  garment,  take  care  not  to  head  a  funeral 
procession;  for  it  may  be  thought  you  share  in  the  grief  of  relatives 
and  friends  ;  it  would  be  to  steal  both  from  the  living  and  the 
dead."  (Moed  Kathan,  26) .  Shouldst  thou  leave  the  town  to  take 
the  air,  take  care  not  to  accept  the  thanks  of  any  visiting  friend 
who  supposes  that  thou  wast  going  to  meet  him.  Otherwise  thou 
wilt  be  far  from  following  the  example  of  Rab  Safra,  who,  in  such 
a  case,  hastened  to  undeceive  his  friend  by  telling  him  that  he  knew 
not  at  all  of  his  arrival.  Dost  thou  think  that  this  strict  sincerity  is 


68  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

imposed  on  thee  with  reference  to  thy  co-religionists  only?  The 
Pharisee,  Samuel,  the  physician  of  Juda  the  Holy,  the  friend  of 
Plotinus,  is  at  hand  to  undeceive  thee.  He  requires  the  greatest 
sincerity  in  our  dealings  with  all  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
and  he  is  the  first  to.  illustrate  personally  that  we  cannot,  without 
sin,  act  otherwise;  as  witness  the  anecdote  wherein  Samuel  re- 
proaches his  servant  for  having  offered  a  boatman  a  mixture  of 
wine  and  water,  as  pure  wine.  So  much  as  to  theft. 

And  as  to  deceit — to  take  advantage  of  your  brother's  mean  or 
Pagan  origin,  of  his  dishonorable  past,  or  unfortunate  present,  to 
say  to  him,  remember  your  past  life,  your  ancestors  ;  your  mouth 
that  now  utters  the  truth  and  the  praise  of  the  Everlasting,  was 
formerly  polluted  with  blood,  strangled  meats,  impure  food ;  your 
sufferings  are  but  the  just  punishment  of  your  former  faults.  "And 
which  of  the  two  is  worse?"  asks  the  great  doctor  of  the  Cabalistic 
school,  R.  Simeon  Ben  Jochai.  "  It  is  the  former  who  is  a  hundred 
times  more  guilty.  For  does  he  not  attack  a  man's  honor,  a  thou- 
sand times  more  precious  than  money  ?  Is  it  not  a  far  more  irrep- 
arable loss  than  the  most  flagrant  fraud,  which  may  at  any  time  be 
repaired  with  money." 

This  sincerity,  this  perfect  magnanimity,  were  so  well  rooted  in 
.the  Jewish  heart,  that  all  the  splendor  of  the  tiara  could  not  dazzle 
them,  when  that  tiara  was  stained  by  such  baseness  as  the  foregoing. 
Thus  the  memory  of  a  Pontiff,  whose  generosity  equaled  not  his 
dignity,  remained  forever  disgraced  in  Israel.  He  had  just  per- 
formed the  majestic  .ceremonies  of  the  Day  of  Atonement.  Fol- 
lowed by  the  crowd,  he  was  almost  borne  in  triumph  to  their  abode. 
Suddenly  the  crowd  opened  to  let  two  men  in  foreign  dress  and  of 
strange  tongue,  pass  ;  they  were  proselytes  !  Scheinaia  and  Abtal- 
ion,  two  masters  venerated  in  Israel,  the  teachers  of  Hillel  and 
Schammai.  The  indiscreet  and  proud  Pontiff  thus  addressed  them: 
Let  the  sons  of  the  Gentiles  come  in  peace.  "Yes,"  replied  the  doctors, 
lowering  their  eyes,  "  let  the  sons  of  the  Gentiles  come  in  peace  if 
they  do  the  works  of  Aaron  ;  but  let  not  the  sons  of  Aaron  come 
in  peace,  if  they  have  not  also  his  virtues  and  his  works."*  And 
Israel  has  ever  repeated :  Let  the  sons  of  the  Gentiles  come  in 
peace,  if  they  practice  the  virtues  of  Aaron. 

"We  see  that  the  most  indirect  offence  to  Charity  is  most  severely 
condemned  by  the  Hebrew  ethics.  But  is  Charity  itself  there  ? 
There  seems  a  doubt  about  the  matter,  so  accustomed* are  people 
to  make  the  terms  Christianity  and  Charity  synonymous.  We  re- 
peat that  there  are  subline  traits  of  character  in  the  Gospels.  But 

*  Talmud,  Yoma,  f.  71. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  69 

is  this  to  say  that  it  is  there  as -a  new  precept,  as,  to  our  great  aston- 
ishment, the  Gospel  declares  ?  It  is  perhaps  unjust  to  say  so  even 
respecting  Paganism ;  but  it  is  absurd  as  regards  Hebraism.  In 
vain  would  Christianity  lift  itself  into  the  regions  of  an  almost  mys- 
tical morality  ;  it  is  on  the  wings  of  Hebraism  that  it  soars  to  these 
heights.  In  vain  does  it  assert  "  God  is  Charity," — this  sublime 
saying  that  deeply  stirred  the  whole  Pagan  world  lapped  in  sensu- 
ality— it  got  this  from  Judaism.  "  God  is  Charity,  God  is  Love," 
says  the  Cabala,  and  also  the  Midrasch.  And  what  have  the  doc- 
tors made  of  the  Mosaic  precept,  "Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself?" 
They  have  made  it  the  great  principle  of  the  law,  according  to 
Akiba,  or,  according  to  Hillel,  that,  of  which  the  wJiole  law  is  but  the 
commentary.  They  have  changed  the  concluding  words  of  the 
verse,  /  am  the  E'ernal,  into  an  oath  of  righteous  justice  against  all 
who  practiced  not  this  precept.  They  have  given  Charity  this  com- 
prehensive appellation,  GJiemilouth  hassadim.  Now,  at  what  do 
they  hold  this  ?  Xo  ideas  more  noble  could  be  entertained.  It  is, 
with  Doctrine  and  Religion,  one  of  the  three  pillars  of  tlie  Universe.  It 
is  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  the  laic  ;  for  this  last  shows  us  at 
its  commencement  God  giving  man  a  companion;  secondly,  God 
visiting  Abraham ;  and,  finally,  still  God  appointing  a  tomb  for 
Moses.  Without  this,  science,  faith,  worship,  will  never  make 
aught  but  a  man  without  God,  without  that  God  of  truth  of 
whom  it  is  written  :  "Israel  shall  remain  many  days  without  the 
God  of  truth."*  (Hence  £he  practice  of  truth  spoken  of  by  the  Gos- 
pels. )  Without  this,  possess  what  virtues  he  may,  a  man  can  be 
at  best  but  badly  righteous;  he  alone  being  perfect  who  is  good 
towards  both  God  and  men,  while  the  other  is  so  only  towards  the 
Lord.  On  the  other  hand,  with  Charity,  all  other  virtues  go  ;  for 
Eabban  Johanan  Ben  Zaccai  having  challenged  all  his  disciples  to 
say  which  virtue  they  thought  the  greatest,  and  Eleazar  having 
said  that  it  was  a  good  heart,  the  master  said  :  /  think  the  judgment 
of  Eleazar  better  than  yours,  for  all  yours  are  contained  in  his.j  Had 
Sodom  and  its  sisters  this,  they  would  have  found  mercy  at  the  bar 
of  the  Eternal,  idolatrous  and  corrupt  though  they  were — had  only 
the  incense  of  a  little  Charity  perfumed  the  cankness  of  their  vices. 
Thanks  to  this,  Micha,  the  idolatrous  Jew,  was  tolerated  a  long  time, 
though  the  angels  accused  him  before  God,  saying:  "See Lord, 
the  smoke  from  thy  altars  mingles  with  that  of  the  offerings  to 
Micha's  id!t»l  !  "  And  God  replied,  "  Leave  him  in  peace  ;  his  bread 
is  offered  to  poor  travelers.  "J  This  is  more  than  all  the  sacrifices 
in  the  world  ;  more  than  holocaust  or  sin-offering  ;  and  consoles  us 

*  Aboda  Zara,  from  10  Chron.  xv.  3.       t  Abotfc,  Chap.  2.         I  Talmud,  tr.  Saahedr,  103. 


70  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

in  exile  for  the  overthrow  of  temple  and  altar.    It  did  so  for  an  eye 

witness  of  his  country's  fall  !  Rabbi  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai  was  walk- 
ing one  day  through  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  Rabbi  Jehoschoua 
followed  him.  All  at  once  they  came  upon  the  ruins  of  the  temple. 
Rabbi  Jehoschoua  sighing,  said:  "  Woe  to  us!  Who  henceforth 
shall  atone  for  our  sins?"  "Be  comforted,  my  son,"  said  the 
master,  "  we  have  still  a  substitute  in  Charity,  for  it  is  written,  '  I 
love  Charity  more  than  sacrifice.'  "  *  And  after  the  fall  of  the  first 
temple,  did  not  Daniel,  in  Babylon,  offer  to  God  Charity,  in  place 
of  sacrifice,  by  rejocing  at  the  weddings  of  the  poor,  by  burying 
the  dead,  and  giving  alms  ;f  in  short,  by  this  is  the  true  Israelite 
recognized.  Whoever  possess  the  three  following  virtues  are  of 
the  lineage  of  our  father  Abraham ;  who  lack  them,  are  not  his 
children ;  his  true  children  are  compassionate,  modest,  and  chari- 
table. (Gomle  chassodim.)f 

Is  this  Charity  alms  ?  We  have  seen  how  different  it  is  from 
this  ;  and  in  that  difference  lies  not  the  least  noble  trait  of  Phari- 
saical morality.  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  primitive  Christianity 
should  have  made  so  much  of  it,  putting  Charity  above  all  special 
benevolence  bf  which  it  is  the  soul  and  spring  ?  Paul  and  Clement, 
of  Alexandria,  have,  they  too,  well  said  :  "Works,  even  for  a  good 
purpose,  have  no  merit  for  salvation,  except  through  Charity  ;  and 
this  is  the  measur  e  of  their  actual  worth."  But  is  not  the  Pharisai- 
cal doctrine  taught  in  express  terms  Not  only  is  Charity  carefully 
distinguished  from  simple  alms- giving,  and  from  every  other  good 
work,  but  it  is  declared  far  superior  to  all  special  benevolence,  to 
Tzedaka,  for  instance,  which  it  surpasses,  they  add,  in  many  re- 
spects ;  for  the  one  has  to  do  but  with  things  exterior  to  man  ;  the 
other,  with  man's  whole  nature,  body  and  soul ;  the  one  serves  the 
living  only  ;  the  other,  the  dead  as  well ;  the  one  concerns  itself  for 
the  poor  only ;  the  other,  for  the  rich  also  ;  for  with  them,  too, 
Charity  finds  wounds  to  heal,  tears  to  dry,  griefs  to  ease.f  And 
more :  alms-giving  itself  is  rewarded  only  so  far  as  it  is  transfused 
by  Charity ;  for  it  is  written,  "  Sow  alms,  and  you  can  reap  onjy 
according  to  Charity.'"  (Hos.  x,  12).  And  if  he  who  gives  his  mite 
to  the  poor  deserves  six  blessings,  he  who  soothes  an  affliction,  who 
gives  not  his  bread  but,  (as  the  Doctors  finely  comment  on  the 
text)  his  soul,  the  latter  shall  have  the  eleven  blessings  named  by 
the  prophet  Isaiah. § 

This  Charity,  that  doubtless  found  with  the  Pharisees  its  widest 
application,  may  be  understood  as  having  limits,  as  applying 

*  Maghen  aboth,  from  Talmud^tr.  Soucca,  49.  fTalmud  Yebomath,  79. 

t  Massecfcet  Kala.  g  Baba  Bator*. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  71] 

to  friends  only,  as  excluding  enemies,  whether  personal,  religions, 
or  political.  Does  Jewish  Charity  recognize  this  distinction? 
A  delicate  question  as  between  Judaism  and  Christianity !  Not 
observing  the  capital  distinction  between  the  Jewish  State  and 
the  Jewish  faith,  but  taking  Hebraism  as  a  homogeneous  whole, 
some  consider  Hebrew  Charity  quite  equal  to  the  Christian,  and 
some,  far  inferior.  But,  by  observing  the  distinction,  we  can  see 
•wherein  Hebrew  Charit  y  is  similar  to,  diverse  from,  or  superior  to 
the  other. 

As  regards  the  personal  enemy,  we  must  reserve  for  that  a  special 
consideration.  What  does  Judaism  teach  as  to  the  remaining  two  ? 
By  this  classification  we  can  better  appreciate  the  merit  Christian- 
ity decrees  itself,  and  the  airs  it  has  put  on  from  the  evangelical 
era  to  the  present  time  ,  on  the  score  of  its  unlimited  Charity.  With 
respect  to  this  comparison,  Matthew  (v,  43  and  seq.)  writes  :  "  Ye 
have  heard,  adds  Jesus,  that  it  was  said  :  Thou  shall  love  thy  neigh- 
bor and  hate  thine  enemy ;  but  I  siy  unto  you,  love  your  enemies  and 
bless  those  who  curse  you"  By  the  words,  ye  have  heard,  Jesus  doubt- 
less refers  to  the  Law  of  Moses.  There  is  not,  I  dare  say,  one  of 
the  precepts  named  in  this  chapter,  upon  which  an  improvement  is 
pretended,  that  does  not  belong  to  the  Mosaic  code.  We  are  forced, 
then,  to  refer  verse  43  to  the  Mosaic  code,  and  must,  for  other  rea- 
sons, consider  it  a  textual  citation  from  the  Law,  its  form  being 
different  from  the  style  of  Jesus,  whenever  the  tradition  of  men  clashes 
(as  he  thinks)  with  the  icord  of  God.  This  being  established,  it  is  not 
easy  to  detect  the  origin  and  true  meaning  of  this  imputation,  so 
expressly  does  it  seem  forged  to  give  the  new  law  pre-eminence,  and 
so  little  root  does  it  appear  to  have  in  either  the  text  or  spirit  of  the 
Scriptures.  What  first  strikes  us  is,  that  while  the  preceding  citations 
from  the  Pentateuch,  in  this  chapter,  are  almost  literal  extracts  from 
the  text,  in  vain  shall  we  search  the  whole  five  books  to  discover 
any  verse  that  tallies,  in  either  the  letter  or  spirit,  with  that  given 
us  by  Jesus.  In  Leviticus,  indeed,  we  have  the  first  half  of  the 
verse,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  ;  but  where,  in  the  name  of  won- 
de;r,  shall  we  find  the  other  half,  thou  shalt  hate  thine  enemy  ?  Can 
we  doubt  that  Jesus  has  assigned  to  Hebrew  Charity  the  limits  that 
his  imagination  only  and  his  prejudices  suggested  ?  That  he  has 
brought  false,  not  to  say  malicious,  suit  against  it  ?  Before  exam- 
ining whether  there  be  anything  in  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  code  to 
warrant  this  charge,  let  us  turn  to  another  Gospel  text,  which  may 
throw  light  on  our  subject. 

A  Doctor  of  the  Law,  as  Luke  says  (x,  25  and  seq.),  came  to 
Jesus,  and,  in  Pharisaical  fashion,  of  which  examples  abound  in  the 
Talmud,  asked  him,  Master,  what  must  I  do  to  gain  eternal  life  ?  To 


72  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 


Jesus  replied:  "  "What  is  written  in  the  Law?  "  and  he  said, 
Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord,  thy  God,  &c.,  .  .  and  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self. To  which  Jesus  replied,  "Thou  hast  answered  well  ;  do  this 
and  thou  shalt  live."  But,  wishing  to  justify  himself,  the  Doctor 
asks  furthermore  :  "And  who  is  my  neighbor  ?  "  To  which  Jesus 
replies,  "  A  certain  man  went  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,"  &c. 
Nothing  improbable  in  the  Doctor's  question,  whether  he  asked  it 
for  the  sake  of  instruction,  or,  as  is  more  likely,  to  test  Jesus.  But 
scarcely  have  we  taken  the  first  step,  when  the  probability  of  the 
occurrence  diminishes  and  we  cannot  but  suspect  that  we  have  to 
do  merely  with  a  dramatic  scene,  drawn  by  an  awkward  hand,  for 
the  purpose  of  displaying  the  superiority  of  Christian  to  Jewish 
ethics.  The  whole  character  of  this  narrative  from  Luke,  and 
the  passage  from  Matthew,  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  Hebrew 
Charity  stopped  at  a  fixed  point,  the  enemy,  whether  we  understand 
this  word  in  a  general  sense  or  in  the  special  one  intimated  by  the 
Samaritan  of  the  Gospel  parable. 

But  who,  according  to  the  Gospel  itself,  is  this  enemy  ?  It  is 
first,  the  personal  enemy.  Can  we  doubt  it.  The  antitheses  of 
neighbor  and  enemy,  in  Matthew  (v,  43)  ,  of  phrases  such  as  these,  — 
Do  good  to  those  who  hate  you  ;  pray  for  those  who  persecute  you  ;  for 
if  you  love  only  those  who  love  you,  &c.  —  and  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  the  parable  of  the  Samaritan,  all  show  that  it  is  the  personal 
enemy  whom  we  must  hate  according  to  Judaism  and  love  according 
to  the  Gospel.  But  the  political  enemy  is  no  less  clearly  designated 
by  the  Samaritan  of  the  parable.  This  enemy  too,  then,  we  must 
hate,  according  to  one  system,  and  love  according  to  the  other. 
But  is  this  the  actual  teaching  of  Judaism  ?  Are  we  to  take  this 
gross  caricature  for  the  true  portrait  of  Hebrew  ethics  ?  Omitting, 
for  the  moment,  what  regards  the  personal  enemy,  our  task  is  very 
simple  here.  We  shall  ask  ourselves  if  the  love  of  one's  neighbor, 
commanded  by  the  law  of  Moses,  allows  us  to  exclude  the  stranger, 
the  non-Israelite  ;  or  if,  indeed,  within  the  limits  necessary  to 
political  existence,  the  Charity  of  Israel  knows  no  bounds,  but, 
like  that  of  God  himself,  includes  all  mankind. 

But  let  us  first  notice  two  points  wherein  Jewish  Charity  far 
surpasses  Christian.  These  are  Country  and  Society.  If  Jesus 
preaches  love  to  all  men,  if  Christianity  plumes  itself  more  than 
does  any  religion,  on  its  humanitarianism,  it  is  at  the  expense  of  a 
love  no  less  sacred,  that  of  country  and  society.  Christianity 
knows  but  one  country,  the  world,  or  rather  Heaven;  and  but  one 
society,  spiritual  society.  One's  country,  its  rights,  its  needs,  the 
limitations  it  sometimes  sets  to  universal  charity,  as  one  right  limits 


JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS.  73 

another  ;  civil  society,  truly  human,  as  including  bodies  and  souls 
muted,  its  special  rights,  its  requirements,  the  relation  between  its 
members,  the  laws  governing  these  relations,  &c.  ;  all  these  things 
are  ignored  by  Christianity.  Does  Christianity  recognize  the  polit- 
ical enemy?  No.  Does  it,  a  social  justice?  Nor  yet  this.  Now, 
without  a  political  enemy,  there  can  be  no  country  ;  without  social 
penalties,  no  society,  no  justice.  A  striking  example  of  charity 
supplanting  the  rights  of  justice,  is  the  pardon  of  the  adulteress 
under  the  pretext  that  there  was  no  one  who,  as  being  guiltless, 
could  stone  her ;  and  it  is  precisely  upon  the  ruins  of  both  the 
political  and  the  social  necessities  that  Christianity  is  based — by 
snapping  the  ties  that  bind  man  to  earth,  it  takes  its  flight  to 
spheres  where  man  cannot  follow.  We  shall  not,  just  now,  dilate 
on  the  menstruum  Christianity  proves  for  a  social  organization. 
We  shall  but  consider  it  in  its  political  tendency.  While  Judaism 
never  omits  any  of  the  lower  steps  that  lead  to  universal  charity, 
but  lets  the  individual,  the  family,  the  city,  the  country,  each  play 
its  proper  part,  Christianity  leaps  over  all  these,  burying  them  in 
the  abstract  gulph  it  calls  the  world,  humanity,  or  the  Church. 

Let  it,  then,  be  no  longer  asserted  that  Christianity  has  taught 
men  greater  charity  than  Judaism.  If  it  has  effected  this  illusion, 
it  is  by  taking  away  from  the  individual,  family,  and,  above  all, 
country,  those  rights  which  Judaism,  with  more  equity  had  distrib- 
uted to  each  class,  to  give  them  all  to  humanity,  thereby  losing  in 
intensity  what  it  gained  in  extent. 

This  truth  results  not  alone  from  many  passages  and  the  general 
spirit  of  the  Gospels,  but  it  takes  a  special  form  in  the  parable  of 
the  Samaritan.  What  a  name  !  And  why  has  it  not  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  savants  ?  They  might  have  asked,  why  this  partic- 
ular choice  ;  why  not  select  rather  a  Gentile,  a  Greek,  a  Roman — 
names  much  better  calculated  to  show  off  the  superiority  of  the 
Christian  to  the  Jewish  ethics  ?  If  we  ask  this  question  perhaps 
•we  shall  obtain  a  glimpse  of  the  object  of  the  parable,  of  the  ties 
it  wishes  to  sever  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  of  that  central  stay  it 
would  to  efface  from  the  bosom  of  mankind  ;  perhaps  we  shall  find 
the  final  word  as  to  this  parable,  the  abolition  of  country.  Yes,  we 
ask,  why  a  Samaritan  ?  Is  it  that  Jesus,  far  from  troubling  himself 
yet  about  his  scheme  for  all  humanity,  far  from  extending  his  views 
beyond  Palestine,  sought  only  to  establish  in  the  very  heart  of  his 
country,  equality  of  all  races,  of  all  nations,  to  stifle  the  country, 
so  to  speak,  upon  its  bed  of  suffering.  Did  he  also  share  the  detes- 
tation of  his  co-patriots,  for  the  tyranny  and  cruelty  of  the  Gentiles  ? 

We  see  but  one  motive  in  this  choice  of  the  Samaritan,  viz  :  to 
personify  in  him  the  political  enemy,  and  him  only.  And  truly,  if 


74  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

there  ever  sprang  from  the  bosom  of  Judaism  an  implacable  politi- 
cal enemy  it  was  the  Samaritan.  No  more  fit  emblem  of  this  could 
Jesus  have  selected.  For  why  does  he  not  choose  the  idolater,  the 
faithless  Israelite,  the  Roman,  at  once  a  religious  and  political 
enemy  ?  He  wishes  to  confine  himself  to  the  pure  political  enemy, 
monotheistic  in  his  creed,  no  less  than  the  Israelite.  Can  we  doubt 
the  political  object  Jesus  had  in  view? — the  suppression  of  the 
spirit  of  nationality,  of  the  interests  and  needs  of  patriotism. 

This  is  not  all.  Is  it  the  simple  idea  of  duty  which  Jesus  sub- 
stitutes for  this  ?  Does  he  show  us  a  Samaritan  suffering  on  the 
highway,  neglected,  abandoned  by  a  priest,  a  Levite,  and  succored 
by  a  Pagan  or  a  simple  Israelite  who  knew  his  duty  as  to  charity 
better  than  those  of  the  national  hierarchy  ? 

Such  an  exhibition  could  mean  only  that  charity  and  help  should 
be  extended  to  all  the  unfortunate,  be  they  Samaritans,  Jews,  or 
Pagans,  and  Judaism  could  have  naught  to  gainsay.  But  this  is 
not  what  Jesus  presents  to  us.  It  is  not  virtue,  duty,  absolute 
charity,  that  he  substitutes  for  national  egotism;  it  is  another  ego- 
tism, personal  egotism,  the  self-love,  taken  as  a  rule  of  conduct  in 
our  dealings  with  others,  that  he  puts  in  place  of  the  far  nobler  love 
of  country.  For,  in  this  parable,  it  is  a  suffering  Israelite  whom 
he  presents  to  Israelites,  neglected  by  his  own  people,  and  tenderly 
cared  for  by  a  Samaritan.  And  after  having  traced  a  picture, 
wherein  any  one  of  his  hearers  might  at  any  time  play  the  chief 
part, — after  having  touched  the  most  sensitive  chords  of  egotism, 
of  personal  preservation;  after  having  shown  in  the  .political  enemy 
a  personal  friend,  and  created  this  perilous  variance  and  artificial 
perplexity,  not  based  on  truth,  but  which  might  easily  escape  the 
notice  of  his  inexperienced  audience — he  presses  the  conclusion  : 
Which  of  those  three  is  thy  neighbor  ?  And  the  anti-political  ob- 
ject of  Jesus  is  so  much  his  concern,  that  the  great  danger  in  which 
he  places  his  own  ethics,  escapes  his  notice.  In  his  impatience  to 
give  the  Samaritan  the  title  neighbor,  he  takes  it  away  from  the 
Israelite;  in  his  haste  to  put  egotism  under  obligation  to  the  ben- 
efactor, he  forgets  to  curb  it  towards  the  enemy  ;  he  forgets  that 
love  of  one's  enemy,  the  cherished  theme  of  another  antagonism 
which  he  raises  between  the  old  law  and  the  new.  For  if  the 
Samaritan  is  my  neighbor  solely  on  account  of  his  services,  the 
priests  and  the  levites,  though  they  have  done  me  no  positive 
injury,  cannot  get  this  title,  as  they  refused  me  what  the  Samaritan 
lavishly  bestowed. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  751 


CHAPTER  V3I. 

CliAJRITY. 


QTXAXJTTSS  OF  THE  USTVEBSAL  CHABITY  OP  JUDAISM.  —  NOT  TO  BE  FOTOD  in  CHRISTIAN 
CHABITT.  —  UNITY  OF  MAN'S  ORIGIN.  —  THE  WOBTH  AND  RESULTS  OF  THIS  DOCTBIN* 
W  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  THE  PH  VBISEES.  —  MAN  M  VDE  AFTEB  GOD'S  IMAGE  ;  VALUE  or 
THE  DOCTBINE.—  UNITY  OF  DESTIXY.—  MOSES  AND  SOPHONIAS.—  HISTOBT  OF  THI 
PBIJOTIVE  AGES.—  HUMANITABIAN  CHAKACTEB  OF  THE  PBOPHECIES  ;  CAN  BE  TKACED 
IK  THE  LAWS.—  JUSTICE  AND  CHABITT  EQUAL  FOB  ALL.—  UNTVEBSAL  CHABITT  OF  THB 
PHAKISEES.—  CIBCUMSTANCES  THAT  ENHANCE  ITS  VALUE.—  SALVATION  TO  ALL  MEN. 
—  IDEA  OF  MAN.  —  HUMANITABIAN  IDEAS  OF  THE  PHABISEES.  —  GENTILE  GBEATNEM 
KQUAL  TO  THAT  OF  THE  HIGH  PBEEST.—  TJNTVEXSAL  LOVE,  RESPECT  JOB  LlFX, 
PBOPEBTT,  AND  EEPUTATION—  RESTBICTIOHS.  —  POLITICAL  ENEJCT  .—  CHBIST  HAI 
CBEATED  THE  RELIGIOUS  ENEMY. 

If  Christianity  has  sacrificed  all  for  universal  charity,  has  it,  at 
least,  succeeded  in  giving  us  the  incomparable  ideal  for  -which  it  is 
credited  ?  Has  it  transcended  in  this  respect  the  teachings  of  Ju- 
daism, that  have,  withal,  not  infringed  on  the  places  and  rights  of 
country  and  society  ?  We  dare  assert  that,  in  spite  of  the  enormous 
sacrifices  it  has  made,  it  gives  us  an  idea  of  universal  charity  far  less 
grand  than  that  bequeathed  us  by  Judaism.  And  we  may  risk  the 
assertion  that  the  latter,  by  preserving  the  rights  of  country  and 
society,  has  made  charity  more  active  (if  possible)  ,  more  tender, 
more  humane,  and  in  short,  more  charitable.  Christianity  sees  in 
man  but  man  in  the  abstract,  or  even  at  most  but  the  Christian. 
But  what  does  the  Hebrew  not  see  in  him  !  Man,  his  brother,  cre- 
ated like  himself  in  the  image  of  God,*  the  worshiper  of  the  same 
God,  though  he  be  not  a  disciple  of  Moses,  a  father,  brother,  son; 
a  member,  in  short,  of  a  fam  ily,  and  above  all  one  that  has  a  coun- 
try, a  nationality;—  and  as  the  Jew  himself  is  also  a  citizen,  one  of 
a  nation,  he  can  sympathize  with  the  affections  appertaining  to  citi' 
zenship  and  nationality,  with  the  joys  and  sorrows,  virtues  and  he- 
roisms these  relations  beget.  In  a  word,  Judaism  presents  a  new 
point  of  contact  for  men  ;  by  multiplying  relations,  it  doubles, 
triples  universal  charity  ;  and,  instead  of  the  dry  abstraction,  man, 
that  Christianity  would  have  us  love,  it  gives  its  adherents  some* 
thing  more  real,  more  alive  and  similar  to  ourselves  —  something 
with  affections  and  wants  like  our  own  —  a  father,  a  citizen,  a  pat- 
riot. 

But  leaving  these  restricted  considerations  of  man's  character, 
should  Judaism  envy  Christian  ethics  ?  We  need  but  call  to  mind 
one  important  doctrine,  one  that  is  more  peculiar  to  Judaism  than 


76  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

to  any  religion  or  to  any  nation,  one  that  is  the  essential  base  of| 
universal  charity,  and  without  which  no  philosophy  can  ever  sue-' 
ceed  in  transfusing  man's  heart  with  that  tender  brotherly  love, 
•which  is  its  direct  consequence — and  that  is  UNITY  of  ORIGIN.  Let 
us  remember  that  long  before  liberty  and  equality  were  spoken  of, 
Israelitic  tradition  showed  how  eminently  favorable  was  this  great 
doctrine  to  these  two  principles  among  men.  "Why,"  say  in  the 
Talmud,  these  much-misunderstood  Pharisees,  "has  man  got  but 
one  origin  ?  It  is  first,  that  no  one  may  say  to  another,  '  my  father 
is  greater  than  thine  ;'*  and  secondly,  that  no  people  or  family  may, 
with  justification,  put  another  in  subjection."  Alas!  how  many 
such  tyrannies  have  we  not  in  the  world  !  How  would  it  be  if  each 
people  and  race  had  a  separate  origin?  But  mankind  from  the  same 
parents,  how  shall  that  be  ?  And  their  children  all  similar  in  ap- 
pearance ?  A  grand  thought,  and  one  that  Genesis,  of  all  books 
esteemed  by  men,  alone  contains. 

Man  has  been  created  in  ike  image  of  God  ;  he  is  the  king  of  cre- 
ation ;  all  ought  obey  him,  that  he  may  ennoble  and  spiritualize  all, 
by  leaving  on  them  traces  of  the  mould  from  which  he  himself  was 
struck.  Is  this  representation  an  exaggeration  on  our  part,  or  is  it 
truly  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  strict  Mosaic  text  ?  These 
inimitable  doctrines  are  like  the  sun,  the  sky,  and  other  wonders  of 
creation — ever  before  us,  ever  familiar  to  us,  and  therefore  scarce 
any  longer  objects  of  our  admiration — otherwise  the  august  ideas 
that  Judaism  expresses  would  forever  call  forth  our  unqualified 
wonder  and  respect. 

There  are,  however,  two  important  considerations  which  cannot 
but  enhance  the  value  of  these  doctrines.  The  one  is  the  time,  the 
atmosphere  wherein  they  were  enunciated  ;  the  other,  the  people 
to  whom  they  were  addressed,  and  the  end  sought  in  diffusing 
them.  Truth  herself  must  indeed  have  inspired  the  Hebrew  law- 
giver, if,  in  the  midst  of  a  people  who  accounted  all  close  to  their 
frontiers  as  enemies  and  barbarians,  he  was  bold  enough  to  pro- 
claim a  doctrine  that  went  in  the  very  teeth  of  that  exclusionism  in 
which  each  nation  had  entrenched  itself.  And  this  people,  what 
was  its  character  ?  Here  it  is  that  the  humanitarian  side  of  Israel's 
existence  shines  forth.  We  can  easily  comprehend  that  Moses 
might  communicate  his  great  ideas  respecting  the  unity  of  our 
origin,  the  grandeur  of  man  and  of  his  destiny,  to  some  tried  disci- 
ple, to  a  school,  or,  better  still,  to  missionaries  who  would  force 
them  on  the  attention  of  an  ignorant  world.  Now  had  this  Jewish 
people  whom  he  was  about  to  mould,  anything  of  this  character  ? 
Was  it  not,  in  its  turn,  about  to  become -one  of  the  nations  of  the 

*  Talmud,  Sanhedrim,  38. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHIC^'  4  ^  ^ 

VfH         rT4?/ 

East,  to  have  a  distinct  existence,  and  interests  and  rights  to  defend 
from  the  constant  inroads  of  its  neighbors  ?  Had  it  not  yet  to  pass 
through  many  ages  before  it  could  practice  the  great  principles 
taught  it  by  Moses,  or  even  suspect  the  fine  fruit  they  could  bear  r 
Unquestionably,  this  universal  fraternity,  this  unity  of  origin,  found 
on  the  front  of  Genesis,  have  no  visible  connection  with  the  imme- 
diate future  of  Judaism,  and  seem  to  be  but  dim  reminiscences  of 
Paradise  existing  in  the  midst  of  the  bloody  strifes  of  national 
egotisms ;  or,  to  speak  with  more  precision,  it  appears  evidently  like 
a  coupling-stone  to  which  the  non-political  side  of  Mosaism,  the 
religious  and  moral  one,  held  as  to  one  of  its  chief  stays.  But 
there  is  another  unity  which  Judaism  taught  later  to  men;  that  is, 
the  unity  of  future.  It  is  the  necessary  supplement  to  unity  of  origin, 
destined  to  be  one  day  the  final  terminus  of  this  latter.  At  the  be- 
ginning of  history,  the  unity  of  Moses,  the  unity  of  the  past ;  at 
its  end,  the  unity  of  Sophonias,  the  unity  of  the  future.  The  first 
is  natural  unity,  the  foundation  of  the  other ;  the  second  is  free 
moral  unity, — a  unity  of  love,  faith,  thought, — the  result  at  once 
and  the  crown  of  the  former.  Moses  is  the  prophet  of  the  first,  of 
man  one ;  Zephaniah  (Sophonias)  of  humanity  one,  of  the  collective 
Adam  ;  and  he  gives,  in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  the  justest  formula  of 
this  doctrine,  saying :  At  that  time  I  shall  make  the  lips  of  people  pure 
lips,  that  they  may  all  call  on  the  name  of  the  Eternal,  and  worship  him 
with  one  spirit.  (Zep.  iii.  9.)  Is  this  idea  that  the  Jews  were  to 
form  of  man's  origin  and  of  universal  fraternity,  borne  out  by  the 
history  of  the  first  ages  narrated  to  them  by  Moses  ? 

It  would  be  unjust  to  deny  that  Judaism  alone,  of  all  ancient 
creeds,  has  given  men  the  history  of  their  origin,  of  the  first  ages, 
and  of  the  various  subdivisions  of  mankind.  And  besides  laying 
the  first  stone  of  that  great  ethnological  structure  which  has  been 
so  expanded  in  our  days,  it  has  revealed,  by  this  very  service,  its 
great  moral  and  humanitarian  side,  and  the  destiny  of  this  book 
become  universal. 

But  is  not  the  God  whom  Moses  announces,  the  God  of  all  men  ? 
Are  not  his  justice  and  care  dispensed  equally  to  all  ?  Does  he  not, 
in  the  Mosaic  history,  interpose  continually,  avenging  fratricide, 
drowning  a  corrupt  generation,  giving  Noah  laws,  directions,  which, 
far  from  being  confined  to  that  people  to  be  formed  by  Moses,  are 
the  inheritance  of  all  mankind. 

Is  it  not  "with  all  his  posterity,"  that  God  declares  to  Noah,  he 
established  his  covenant?  (Gen.  ix.  9).  Is  the  God  of  Abraham 
a  fetich,  a  local,  national  God,  like  other  gods  ?  Or  rather  the  God 
of  Jieaven  and  earth?  (Gen.  xiv.  22) .  Does  not  the  great  patriarch 


78  JEWISH  AND  CHKISTIAN  ETHICS. 

become  his  prophet  and  apostle?  Does  he  not  importune  God  on 
behalf  of  those  wicked  people  of  the  plains,  with  whom  his  family  had 
no  affinity  whatever?  Does  not  God  himself  tell  him  of  his  intention 
respecting  these  sinners ;  because,  according  to  the  Doctors,  it  is 
unworthy  of  God  to  punish  the  children  without  telling  their  father, 
namely,  Abraham,  called  by  the  same  Pharisees,  the  father  of  all 
nations  ?  *  Is  not  Joseph  made  to  utter  language  that  reveals  a 
Providence  ever  directing  the  destiny  of  nations?  "It  is  God," 
says  he,  "  who  overruled  your  actions  in  order  to  save  a  great  peo- 
ple "f 

And  why  are  those  Canaanites  driven  before  Israel,  from  their 
land  ?  It  is  here  that  the  God  of  Moses  reveals  himself  as  the  just 
God,  the  God  of  all  men,  dealing  to  the  Jew  the  same  justice  as  to 
the  Canaanite — a  doctrine  unheard  of,  incomprehensible,  in  those 
early  days,  and  which  Judaism  alone  has  made  the  world  under- 
stand. Take  care,  says  Moses,  that  you  be  not  guilty  of  the  same 
sins  and  corruptions  as  are  those  nations  whom  you  are  about  to 
drive  out.  For,  deceive  not  yourselves,  it  is  neither  your  virtue 
nor  equity  of  claim,  that  gives  you  the  inheritance  ;  it  is  their  ini- 
quity on  one  side,  and  on  another  the  oath  that  God  swore  to  your 
fathers.  Moreover,  said  he,  "  if  you  imitate  them  the  earth  will 
spew  you  out,  as  it  did  them."  (Deut.  ix.  5  ;  Lev.  xviii.  24  and 
seq.) 

Shall  we  speak  of  laws?  They  could  not  be  more  charitable,  they 
could  not  better  unite  the  national  existence  and  particular  life  of 
Israel  to  a  love  and  charity  towards  all  men.  Is  it  nothing  that  these 
Gentiles  were  permitted  like  the  holiest  Israelites  to  offer  sacrifices 
on  the  altar  of  the  Lord  ?  This  is  indeed  why  Moses  solicits  Pha- 
raoh (Ex.  x.  25) ,  this  is  what  the  Mosaic  laws  expressly  provide  for, 
requiring  the  same  perfection  in  the  animals  from  the  Pagans  as  in 
those  from  the  Israelites  ;  this  is  what  Solomon  nobly  expresses, 
when  he  supplicates  God  to  hear  the  prayers  of  the  Gentile  and 
stranger  (Nochri)  who  should  adore  him  in  the  temple  he  built.  J 
Shall  we  lightly  esteem  that  peaceful  sojourn  in  Palestine  as- 
sured to  the  Pagan,  on  the  sole  condition  of  his  not  worshiping 
idols,  and  leaving  him  at  full  and  complete  liberty  for  aught  else  ; 
a  liberty  that  extends  sometimes  to  idolatry  (as  say  the  Pharisees) , 
as  in  the  case^of  the  female  captive  who  might  publicly  adore  her 

*  Bereshith  Eabba,  Sect.49. 

f  According  to  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  all  people  are  the  children  of  God  ;  only  Israel 
is  kia  first  born  (Ex.  IV.  22).  See  also,  Is.  XV.  5;  Malachi  I.  11;  Jerem.  X.  7;  and  all 
throughout  the  Pealm*. 


JEWISH  A**D-€HBISTIAN  ETHICS.  79 

gods  in  Palestine.*  And  this  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the  text 
(Lev.  xxv.  39)  where  not  only  is  the  sojourn  of  the  stranger  antici- 
pated, but  his  possible  want,  too,  in  a  strange  land,  which,  with 
paternal  solicitude,  Israel  is  required  to  relieve  ;  as  also  to  regard 
"him  as  a  proselyte  (gher) ,  or  merely  (according  to  the  Pharisees) 
as  the  Pagan  (toschab)  who  dwells  in  Palestine  on  the  fore-men- 
tioned condition  ;  and  he  is  called  by  the  tender  name,  thy  brother, 
(achikha) ,  better  than  neighbor.  But  this  is  not  all.  "Beware  not 
to  take  interest  in  any  form,  from  him ;  but  fear  God  and  act  so 
that  thy  brother  can  live  with  thee."  We  need  scarcely  say  that  if 
this  Pagan  is  a  slave,  the  same  legislation  applies  to  him  as  to  the 
Jew  :  in  the  year  of  Jubilee  he  infallibly  regains  his  liberty.  But, 
what  appears  incredible,  this  same  Pagan,  this  breaker  of  the  Sab- 
bath, this  public  transgressor,  can,  with  the  full  sanction  of  the 
law,  buy  an  Israelite  and  hold  him  as  a  slave  until  the  Jubilee  year. 
And  what  is  as  extraordinary  as  certain,  the  law  of  Moses  regulates 
all  these  cases,  as  :  An  Israelite  may  be  sold  to  an  idolater  and  in 
Palestine  ; — nay — even  to  the  idol  itself,  to  its  temple  and  worship  ; 
and  tradition  (the  Pharisees)  not  only  has  no  objection  to  make, 
but  authorizes  this  interpretation  of  the  text,  in  itself  very  ob- 
scure. To  the  Pharisees  is  indeed  due  this  interpretation  of  Levit- 
icus (xxv.  47) :  The  family  of  the  proselyte  is  the  idolater,  the  idol  itself, 
to  be  served,  not  by  adoration  or  God-worship,  but  by  cutting  wood  and 
drawing  water  for  its  use.  (Vide  Sifra  and  Bacshi) . 

We  do  not  mention  the  remarkable  details  of  these  laws,  the 
exhortations  given  to  the  Jewish  slave  of  the  idolater,  not  to  imi- 
tate his  master,  not  to  say  :  "  My  master  worships  images;  I  shall 
do  likewise.  My  master  breaks  the  Sabbath;  so  shall  I " — to  do 
so  would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  subject. 

The  laws  protecting  the  stranger  and  full  of  lore  and  charity 
towards  him,  are  everywhere  mentioned  :  Love  the  stranger  as  your- 
selves (Kamokha) ;  for  you  have  been  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
for  you  know  the  mind  of  the  stranger,  his  sufferings  and  humilia- 
tions;— words  as  noble  as  significant,  for  they  make  us  see  in  this 
stranger  naught  but  a  man,  of  a  religion,  morality,  and  origin 
diverse  from  those  of  the  Israelites,  just  as  were  the  latter  from 
those  of  the  Egyptians.  Not  to  deceive,  not  to  oppress  him,  not  to 
withhold  unjustly  his  earnings,  being  in  the  same  relation  to  us 
absolutely  as  a  brother.  Admirable  teaching  of  the  Pharisees,  and 
of  them  only.  Not  to  give  him  up  to  his  master,  not  even  to  an 
Israelite,  if  he  has  escaped  from  him  in  a  strange  land  and  seeks  an 
asylum  with  Israel :  let  him  dwell  with  us  and  be  free;  let  no  Isra- 
elite dare  to  trouble  or  to  cheat  him.  All  this  again  through  the 

*  Talmud,  Yabua.,  foL  43. 


80  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

Pharisees.  Is  not  the  needy  stranger  ranked  with  the  poor,  the1 
widows  and  orphans  of  Israel?  Do  they  not  invoke  for  him,  too, 
the  benefit  (better  than  charity)  of  a  right  which  the  law  estab- 
lishes for  all, — the  tenth  part,  the  corner  of  the  field,- and  the  dropped 
cars  of  corn  ? 

"We  have  seen  the  spirit,  not  only  of  the  Mosaic  law,  bnt  of  the 
Pharisaical  interpretation  —  these  eternally  persecuted  Pharisees, 
the  objects  of  implacable  hate — and  who,  notwithstanding,  with 
impassive  heart,  with  serene  and  immovable  spirit,  maintain  all 
that  is  visibly  humanitarian  in  the  Mosaic  law,  and  by  exhibiting  it 
under  a  new  aspect,  and  revealing  its  many-sidedness,  bring  at  last 
Hebrew  charity,  human  fraternity,  into  high  relief. 

Let  us  now  see  the  Pharisees  alone  at  work,  free  from  all  tram- 
mels of  interpretation,  enunciating  in  the  intimacy  of  instruction, 
the  most  independent  doctrines,  whose  publication  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, in  our  modern  Europe,  they  could  never  have  foreseen. 
Well,  these  hypocritical  Pharisees,  of  narrow  views,  ignoble  ambi- 
tion, without  heart,  enthusiasm,  or  genius,  are  not,  as  we  shall  see, 
the  Pharisees  of  history  ;  they  are  the  Pharisees  of  the  Gospel,  or 
rather  (what  has  been  best  proven)  the  pseudo  Pharisees,  taxed, 
by  the  true  Pharisees,  in  their  oldest  books,  with  hypocrisy.  Is  it 
at  all  wonderful  that  Jesus  should  have  taught  a  just,  liberal,  and 
generous  ethics,  and  that,  by  degrees,  the  world  should  have  en- 
tered into  the  plan  of  the  Gospel  ?  Was  Christianity  not  naturally 
driven  by  its  failure  even  with  the  Jews,  to  break  down  the  barrier 
that  hitherto  separated  it  from  the  Gentiles,  and  to  substitute  for  that 
refractory  Israel — that  rebel  to  the  new  faith,  something,  in  good 
sooth,  less  stubborn  ?  And,  above  all,  had  Christianity  to  con- 
tend, like  the  Pharisees,  against  the  perpetual  revolts  of  the  national 
sentiment  from  the  doctrine  of  love  and  charity  towards  all  men  ? 
No  !  To  love  the  Greek,  the  Boman,  or  the  barbarian,  the  Christ- 
ian had  not  to  stifle  the.  bitterest  memories  of  old  or  recent  wrongs  ; 
or  to  shut  his  eyes  to  the  disgrace  or  enslavement  of  his  country, 
he,  who  found  one  wherever  he  went,  at  Jerusalem  no  less  than  at 
Athens  or  Rome.  Should  a  good  thought,  a  noble  doctrine  then, 
have  the  same  value  coming  from  the  Christian  as  from  the  Jew  ? 
Assuredly  not.  If  historical  criticism  is  just,  it  must  admit  that 
whenever  Hebrew  charity  disengages  itself  from  a  thousand  obsta- 
cles, a  thousand  adverse  sentiments,  it  rises  spontaneously  to  those 
hights  where  all  men  appear  equal.  For  the  doctrine  itself  is  too 
old,  too  rooted  in  the  hearts  of  men  to  disown  it,  and  men  are  too 
loyal,  too  generous  to  do  so.  Is  it  nothing  that  these  Pharisees  in 
the  time  of  Caligula,  Tiberias,  and  Nero,  have  seriously  debated  if 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS,  81, 

the  Pagan,  keeping  his  religion,  could  be  saved,  provided  he  ac- 
knowledged God  and  observed  the  moral  laws?  Is  it  nothing, 
above  all,  that  the  affirmative  doctrine  prevailed  in  the  synagogue 
(conformable  to  the  belief  of  all  Israel  to-day) ,  that  Socrates,  Plato, 
and  Marcus  Aurelius,  should  have  their  places  in  Paradise  by  the 
same  title  as  Abraham,  Isaac,  or  Moses?  Is  it  naught  that  the  Pa- 
gan, the  idolater,  should  be  esteemed  as  neighbor,  towards  whom 
fraud  is  strictly  forbidden  ;  that  one  law  prohibits  the  robbery  of 
Jew  or  Pagan  ;  that  they  have  been  so  scrupulous  as  to  forbid  their 
inoffensive  methods  of  gaining  the  good  will  and  esteem  of  the 
idolater,  to  which,  we  already  made  allusion ;  that  they  extended 
the  Mosaic  prohibition  of  hating  the  Egyptian,  to  all  the  nations 
who  gave  Israel  an  asylum,  even  while  they  persecuted  him,  and 
this  by  reason  of  that  fine  maxim  :  "  Throw  no  stone  into  the  well 
from  which  thou  hast  drawn"  ;  that  they  have  exhorted  us  to  suc- 
cor the  poor,  to  visit  the  sick,  to  bury  the  Pagan  dead — an  example 
followed  by  the  primitive  Christians?  Who  but  the  Pharisees 
would  have  told  us  —  the  Mosaic  text  being  silent  thereupon  — 
that  the  seventy  bulls  sacrificed  during  the  eight  days  of  Taberna- 
cles, were  propitiatory  offerings  for  the  seventy  nations  supposed  to 
be  on  the  earth  ?  The  Pharisees  alone  discovered  the  motive,  they 
who  applied  to  Israel  the  words  of  the  Psalm  :  For  my  love  they  per- 
secute me,  and  I  pray  for  them ;  adding  :  These  are  the  seventy  bulls 
that  were  at  that  time  sacrificed,  so  that  the  world  should  not  lose  one  of 
them  ;*  and  who  said  :  Oh!  if  the  nations  but  knew  how  serviceable  to 
them  is  the  house  of  God  !  they  would  have  fortified  it  all  around  that  it 
might  not  be  touched.^  And  who,  moreover,  comparing  Israel  to  a 
dove,  give  us  an  idea  transcending  anything  in  the  Gospels  :  Thine 
eyes  resemble  the  dove's ;  as  the  dove  gives  its  neck  to  the  slayer,  so 
does  Israel ;  as  the  dove  is  made  a  sin-offering,  so  Israel  atones  for  the 
sins  of  the  nations,  giving  the  seventy  bulls  sacrificed  during  Tabernacles 
as  an  atonoment  for  the  Gentiles. J  And  what  a  noble  sentiment  is 
couched  in  these  words  :  Man,  created  in  God's  image,  how  loved  is 
he  by  him  I  That  love  shown  him,  to  be  created  in  that  image.%  And 
think  not  their  thought  extends  but  to  the  Israelite  ;  to  him  the 
Talmud  immediately  after  gives  a  special  dignity  in  the  title,  Son. 
And  is  the  perfection  obtained  by  the  study  and  practice  of  the 
divine  law,  promised  to  the  Jews  only?  Not  so  !  These  are  the  pre- 
cepts, said  Moses,  whose  practice  gives  life  to  man.  Does  the  text,  ask 
the  Pharisees,  say  tliat  the  priest,  the  Levite,  the  Israelite  shall  live  by 
the  law  f  No  !  it  says  MAN,  that  is  the  Gentile  himself.  Without  being 
a  convert  to  Judaism,  without  even  troubling  himself  about  the 

*  Yalkout,  page  251.  t  Midrasth,  Rabba,  Sect.  Em*r  and  Pmcfca*. 

I  Midraath  Schir  h^^M^m.  £  Talmud,  tr.  Abotfc.  Chap.  in. 


82  JEWISH  AND  CHBISTIAN  ETHICS. 

Mosaic  law,  provided  he  studies  and  practises  natural  morality,  he 
may  equal  in  dignity  the  high  priest  of  Judaism.  We  may  boldly 
say  that  they  never  omit  an  opportunity  of  illustrating  the  univer- 
sality and  eminent  humanitarianism  of  their  ethics,  at  the  risk  even 
of  compromising  the  election  of  Israel,  his  rights  or  national  pre- 
judices.* Could  more  be  required  of  the  highest  spirit  ?  Not  in 
vain  did  David  say  :  "  This  is  the  law  for  man,  0  Eternal !  "  (II. 
Sam.  vii.  19) .  The  Pharisees  seize  the  sentence,  force  from  it  all 
its  consequences,  even  those  that  perhaps  its  author  did  not  intend. 
Law  of  man,  they  say,  and  not  of  priest,  Levite,  or  Jew.  Isaiah  (xxvi. 
2)  says  :  "Open  the  doors,  and  let  good  men  enter,  them  who  up- 
hold th«ir  faith."  And  the  Pharisees,  commenting  on  the  word  goy, 
(nation)  say  that  the  reference  is  not  to  Jews  merely,  but  to  man  in 
general,  let  the  creed  or  nationality  be  what  it  may.  "  O  ye  just, 
praise  the  Lord,"  says  David  (Ps.  xxxiii.  1).  To  this,  also,  the 
Pharisees  give  the  same  wide  interpretation,  asserting  that  the  term 
tzaddikim  (the  Just)  takes  in  all  mankind.  And  in  the  125th  Psalm 
(ver.  5)  we  read  :  "O  Eternal,  heap  thy  blessings  on  the  just,  them 
who  have  a  good  heart ! "  Another  occasion  for  the  Pharisees:  The 
Just !  the  Just  in  general.  But  this  is  not  all ;  the  Tanna  debe 
Eliahou  advances  a  step:  I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  witness !  Manor 
woman,  freeman  or  slave,  Jew  or  Pagan,  according  to  their  works  alone 
shall  the  holy  spirit  come  to  them.  They  point  to  Aaron  as  a  model, 
inviting  us  to  have  his  love  towards  men  and  to  lead  them  to  the 
Law.  To  hate  them  would  be  to  give  up  life.  Love  for  humanity 
knows  no  restrictions  ;  we  should  love  idolators  even.  And  who  say 
so  ?  The  Ccbalists. 

This  love  should  not  be  sterile.  The  austere  Schammai  himself 
bends  to  the  great  Judaic  truth  and  teaches:  Study  the  Law,  and  wel- 
come all  men  with  respect.  And  according  to  B.  Ismael  we  should 
welcome  them  with  joy.  And  how  solicitous  are  they  respecting  a 
man's  honor  !  "  Let  thy  neighbor's  honor  be  as  dear  to  thee  as  is 
thine  own"f — "  Despise  no  one."!  B.  Mathia  Ben  Harasch  and  B. 
Johanan,  two  ancient  doctors,  boasted  that  they  had  never  waited 
for  another's  salutation,  were  it  an  idolater's  even.  And  elsewhere  : . 
Who  is  truly  honorable  ?  He  who  honors  his  fellow-creatures.  As  to 
property:  Let  the  property  of  thy  fellow-man  be  for  thee  as  sacred  as 
thine  own.  "  Shouldst  thou  find  thine  enemy's  ox  or  ass  strayed,"  said 
Moses,  "thou  shalt  bring  it  him;"  and  that,  says  B.  Yoschia,  though 

*  And.  indeed,  we  see  in  our  day  the  effects  of  this  too-catholic  spirit  (so  to  speak),  in 
the  facility  with  which  many  modern  Jews  ignore  nearly  all  the  restraints  and  wholesom* 
precepts  of  their  faith  as  inconsistent  with  the  liberal  thought  and  action  that  faith 
ever  beget8.-*[2V<MW. 

t  Abcth,  Chap,  2.  Uboth,  Chap.  4. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  83 

he  be  a  pagan  or  idolater.  If  the  civil  law  allows  usury  from  the 
Gentiles,  the  moral  law,  through  the  Pharisees,  forbids  it :  and  one 
of  them,  a  witness,  doubtless,  if  not  a  victim  of  pagan  cruelties,  after 
seeing  at  the  circus  the  massacre  of  his  brethren,  entered  the  Bet 
hamidrasch  and  taught :  Thou  shalt  not  lend  on  usury  even  to  a 
stranger* 

Does  this,  However,  mean  that  Judaism  knows  no  one  as  enemy 
and  never  felt  hate?  No!  and  we  do  not  blush  to  say  so,  We 
should  not  sacrifice  the  truth,  say  the  Pharisees,  even  on  the  altar 
of  the  Lord,  for  the  language  and  memorable  examples  of  the  pro- 
phets prove  but  one  thing,  that  God  hates,  above  all,  hypocrisy. 
Yes,  the  Jew  has,  or  (to  speak  more  accurately)  had  an  enemy,  the 
political  one.  The  Jew,  who  loved  dearly  his  country,  was  the 
natural  enemy  of  all  who  conspired  against  it.  For  such,  no  truce, 
no  peace,  no  pardon,  as  long  as  there  was  danger.  Against  these 
were  the  exceptional  measures,  the  martial  laws,  the  terrible  decrees, 
of  which  we  read  in  the  law  of  Moses  or  in  the  books  of  the  Kab- 
bis,  attesting  one  thing  only, — danger — having  but  one  object, — 
the  public  safety — recognizing  but  one  right, — the  right  of  defence. 
A  right  not  only  lawful,  but  obligatory  above  all  when  it  has  refer- 
ence to  one's  country.  Easy  for  Christianity,  that  knows  no  country 
or  nationality  to  dispute  a  religious  nation's,  a  sacerdotal  kingdom's 
right  of  existence  and  the  consequences  of  that  right;  to  be  scan- 
dalized whenever  the  preservation  of  Israel  demands  a  restriction  of 
that  limitless  charity  which  is  the  final  object  of  the  restriction.  Is- 
rael, with  erect  head  and  calm  heart,  shall  never  blush  for  its  polit- 
ical character,  given  it  by  the  God  of  Christians,  nor  for  the  exercise 
of  the  rights  appertaining  thereto.  But  has  Christianity  itself  no 
enemies  ?  Here  it  is,  that  the  deplorable  consequences  of  the  ab- 
sence of  a  civil  polity  in  that  system,  unfold  themselves.  We 
have  seen  before  that  Christianity  had  to  seat  itself  upon  the  empty 
throne,  and  to  transfer  there  all  its  religious  character  and  aspira- 
tions, and,  as  it  had  no  political  system,  to  risk  the  fatal  blending 
of  the  spiritual  with  the  temporal — of  faith  with  law,  of  charity 
with  justice,  of  the  interior  court  with  the  exterior,  of  remorse  with 
policemen,  of  hell  with  the  scaffold — of  which  its  history,  alas ! 
gives  us  the  painful  spectacle.  Well,  we  come  to  one  of  the  worst 
results  of  this  confusion  of  things  so  different.  Christianity,  that 
would  not  have  a  political  enemy,  was  obliged  to  have — as  soon  as 
it  encountered  the  world — a  religious  enemy. 

Yes,  the  religious  enemy  is  a  creation  altogether-Christian,  un- 
known  to  Judaism,  impossible  even,  the  moment  it  admits  that 

*  Talmud,  Makkot,  f .  24. 


84  JEWISH  AND  CHKISTIAN  ETHICS. 

eternal  salvation  is  not  thq  exclusive  heritage  of  the  Mosaic  Law. 
So  this  charity,  that  with  the  Jew  is  stopped  only  by  the  political 
enemy,  the  Christian  cannot  entertain  towards  the  religious  enemy. 
And  let  it  not  be  said  that  this  refers  to  posterior  abuses  and  alter- 
ations. The  Gospel  is  there  to  attest  that  the  genius  of  Christianity 
is  true  to  itself  from  the  most  remote  times.  Jesus,  who  knew  so 
well  how  to  pray  for  his  personal  enemies,  who  would  have  the 
Jew  love  the  Samaritan, — that  is  to  say,  the  Pole  to  love  the  Cossack, 
or  the  Italian,  the  Austrian  soldier,  —  Jesus  has  neither  love  nor 
prayer  for  those  not  of  his  church.  I  pray  not,  he  says,  for  the 
world,  but  for  those  whom,  thou  hast  given  me  (John  xvii.  9) ;  and  else- 
where, WJio  is  not  for  me  is  against  me.  The  tree  that  bears  not  fruit 
shall  be  cut  down  and  cast  into  hell-fire.  But  where  find  darker  col- 
ors, more  terrible  words,  than  those  he  uses  to  predict  the  end  of 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  ?  The  Church  had  as  yet  no  soldiers 
or  executioner  at  its  beck,  and  that  is  why  it  has  recourse  to  God, 
but  in  what  a  style  !  It  is  right  that  God  should  afflict  those  who  af- 
flict you,  and  that  you  should  have  respite  when  the  Lord  Jesus  is  re- 
vealed from  heaven  .  .  .  inflames  of  fire,  taking  vengeance  upon  those 
who  know  not  God  and  obey  not  the  Gospel.  It  is  because  there  is  no 
mean  between  obeying  Jesus  and  being  his  enemy,  that  he  himself 
says  :  Do  you  think  I  am  come  to  establish  peace  in  the  world  ?  No,  but 
war.  Whosoever  will  not  leave  father,  mother,  brothers,  to  follow  me,  is 
not  worthy  of  me.  Is  this  execrable  end  the  only  one  Jesus  has  in 
view,  as  think  the  detractors  of  Christianity  ?  Or  does  he  simply 
mean  that  war  must  be  the  inevitable  result  of  variance  of  opinion 
regarding  his  doctrine?  Neither,  although  there  is  some  truth  in 
the  last  opinion.  He  means  this  only,  that  his  doctrine  being  exclu- 
sive, his  faith  intolerant,  there  being  no  mean  between  Christians  and 
the  damned,  between  partisans  and  enemies,  as  soon  as  the  former  de- 
clared for  him,  they  should  regard  all  others  as  religious  enemies,  in 
whom  there  is  nothing  to  love  but  THE  SOUL  and  its  future  conversion ; 
and  to  attain  this  end,  not  to  be  too  particular  about  the  means. 

Would  we  have  an  example  of  this  difference  between  Judaism 
and  Christianity  in  the  manner  each  views  its  relations  to  other 
religions  ?  Paganism  accused  both  at  once  of  being  the  enemies  of 
tlie  human  race.  How  do  they  receive  the  accusation?  On  the  one 
side  Tertullien,  on  the  other,  the  Doctors  of  the  Midrasch  comment 
in  styles  as  singular  as  diverse.  The  former,  although  with  pro- 
scriptions and  constant  carnage  before  him,  hesitates  not  to  retort 
upon  his  adversaries  :  Yes,  we  are  your  religious  enemies.  The  Doc- 
tors see  in  it  but  the  hatred  of  Paganism  towards  them ; — as  to 
theirs,  they  see  it  not,  for  they  feel  it  not.  Only,  as  this  accusation 
came  from  Borne,  from  its  Court,  its  savans,  its  historians,  the 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  #5 

Doctors,  who  did  not  overlook  Rome's  intolerant  oppression  of  the 
world,  or  the  terrible  harvest  of  smotnered  hate  and  revolt  it  was 
everywhere  reaping,  took  care,  in  a  remarkable  sarcasm,  to  make 
Borne,  too,  a  party  :  Y<is,  say  they,  all  the  world  hates  Esau, ;  all  the 
world  hates  Jacob.  And  do  they  think  they  deserve  this  hate  ?  They 
cannot  even  understand  it.  They  seek  in  vain  what  Israel  has  done, 
to  merit  the  scorn  of  the  Gentiles  ;  they  do  not  even  suspect  that 
difference  of  faith  has  caused  it,  so  remote  from  them  in  the  idea  of 
a  religious  enemy.  What  tender  and  pathetic  language  is  this  scrap 
from  the  Midrasch  :  They  hated  me  unjustly,  said  David.  If  Esau 
(Rome)  hates  Jacob,  it  is  because  tlie  latter  took  j rom  him  his  birthright; 
but  wliat  has  he  done  to  the  barbarians?  To  the  Philistines?  To  the 
Arabs  ?  Did  not  David  say  well :  They  hated  me  unjustly  ?  Here  is 
the  whole  spirit  of  Judaism.  It  hates  not ;  so  it  is  astonished  that 
it  should  be  hated,  asking  with  wonder, — not,  Wliat  is  my  creed  ?  (it 
never  thinks  of  that)  — but  only  What  have  I  done  f  That  is  to  say, 
you  cannot  hate  me  but  for  my  deeds,  and  I  am  innocent.  In  this 
cry  of  Judaism  is  found  all  its  complaints  and  tears  for  centuries. 
The  Pharisees  have  uttered  it  from  the  birth  of  Christianity,  and 
the  persecutors  of  the  Jewish  faith  still  hear  repeated  in  an  uner- 
ring simplicity :  "  Tell  me  what  I  have  done  1 " 


CHAPTER  VHL 


ElSTElVrrES. 

MOSAIC  PRECEPTS  AND  PHARISAICAL  INTEBPBETATIONS.  —  FosorvENEsa  OP  INJURIES.  — 

MOSES,  THE  P3OPHETS,  AJJD   THE   PHABISEES.  —  REWABD  OP  PABDON.  —  THE    PABDON 

OP  GOD.—  DUTIES  or  THE  INJURES  ;   THOSE  OP  THE  INJURED.—  EXAMPLES  or  THE 
PHARISEES.—  WHAT  ENHANCES  THEIB  MJRAIJTY. 

The  restrictions  to  universal  charity  can  refer  to  but  three-classes, 
viz  :  to  the  political,  the  personal,  and  the  religious  enemy.  Since 
it  is  denied  that  Judaism  has  universal  charity,  and  since  special 
election,  if  not  Jewish  egotism,  is  spoken  of,  we  have  asked  ourselves 
at  which  of  these  three  classes  has  Jewish  charity  perchance  stop- 
ped. As  to  the  last,  we  have  seen  that  it  is  an  exotic,  unknown  to 
Judaism;  while  of  Christianity,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  natural 
product. 

Aside  from  the  political  enemy,  we  have  seen  the  stranger,  the 
non-Israelite,  our  brother,  through  Adam,  ranked  with  the  Israelite 
himself,  and  loved  in  a  degree  unknown  to  ancient  or  modern 


oD  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

times.  There  remains,  the^,  only  the  personal  enemy,  and  to  this 
we  direct  our  attention.  Is  it  true  that  Judaism  does  not  enjoin 
charity  towards  our  personal  enemies,  or  checks  it  on  account  of 
some  miserable  interest,  some  blind  antipathy  or  tyrannical  passion  ? 
Is  it  true,  in  short,  that  forgiveness  of  injury,  charity,  and  love 
towards  our  enemies  are  the  special  traits  of  Christianity,  and  con- 
stitute a  new  doctrine  introduced  by  Jesus  ?  This  is  the  apparent 
inference  from  his  words:  (Mat.  v.  43),  "You  have  heard  that  it 
was  said  in  old  times :  Thou  slidlt  love  thy  neighbor,  and  hate  thine 
enemy."  We  have,  it  will  be  remembered,  proved  by  the  best  argu- 
ments that  it  is  the  Law  of  Moses  itself  which  is  here  attacked, 
and  that  it  is  the  personal  enemy  alone  to  which  the  last  words 
refer;  moreover,  that  no  such  precept  as  the  last  is  to  be  found 
either  in  the  Law  or  the  Kabbinical  writings,  but  precepts  far  dif- 
ferent in  spirit  from  any  such  "  hate."  We  have  said  enough  as  to 
the  stranger,  and  now  let  us  see  about  the  personal  enemy. 

Shall  we  say  that  Jesus  forgot  the  most  formal  prescriptions  of 
the  Mosaic  law  ?  There  are  two  passages  where  charity  to  one's 
enemy  is  enjoined,  and  in  both,  the  Mosaic  precept,  sufficiently 
noble  in  itself,  is  ten  times  more  exalted  and  refined  through  the 
interpretation  of  the  Pharisees.  Singular  destiny  of  their  writ- 
ings— to  rebut,  at  each  step,  the  extraordinary  imputations  of  the 
Gospel !  I  say  extraordinary,  unless  they  are  made  against  those 
false  Pharisees,  rebuked  by  the  Talmud  itself,  as  we  have  said. 
"  Hate  not  thy  brother  inwardly,  but  censure  him  for  his  error,  and 
thou  shalt  be  blameless,"  says  Moses.  Would  it  be  less  strict  in 
practice  ?  "  Take  not  vengeance,  and  bear  no  ill  will  towards  thy 
fellow-citizens,  but  love  thy  neighbor  (who  is  created)  like  thyself  : 
I  am  the  Everlasting."  (Lev.  xix.  17,  18).  That  is,  no  vengeance 
on  any  one,  as  the  last  words  of  the  precept  show.  If  the  Mosaic 
language  appear  sometimes  confined  to  the  Jewish  circle,  it  is,  I 
think,  because  no  regular  connections  existed  with  those  outside 
it.  But  hear  the  Pharisees  on  this  law  of  pardon.  "What  is 
vengeance?"  ask  they  :  Lend  my  thy  hook.  No,  I  shall  not  lend  it 
thee,  as  thou  didst  refuse  me  thine  the  other  day  :  here  is  revenge. — 
Lend  me  thy  hook.  Yes  ;  though  thou  didst  refuse  me  thine  the  other  day  ; 
here  is  ill  will."  What  delicate  sentiments,  and  not  found  in  the 
Mosaic  text!  Moses  says  elsewhere,  "  Shouldst  thou  see  thine  ene- 
my's ox  or  ass  strayed,  return  it  him."  .  .  "  Shouldst  thou  see,"  say 
the  Pharisees,  "thine  enemy's  ass  bending  under  a  burden  and 
withhold  thine  aid?  No  ;  help  to  relieve  his  animal."  What  enemy 
is  here  meant  ?  We  have  already  seen ;  although  the  Talmud 
excludes  the  political  enemy,  the  Mekhilta,  a  much  older,  more 
venerable  text,  includes  not  only  the  political  enemy,  but  the  rem- 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  87 

gade  idolatrous  Jew,  the  personal  enemy.  But  how  do  the  Pharisees 
understand  this  precept  as  to  charity  ?  A  friend,  they  say,  bends 
under  his  burden,  and  at  the  same  time  an  enemy  asks  your  help 
to  load.  What  strong  reasons  for  preferring  to  assist  the  friend! 
And  the  Law  tells  us  not  what  we  should  do  ;  but  the  Phar- 
isees do,  saying  expressly  that  the  enemy  must  first  get  our  aid. 
Are  we  not  right  in  sayi»g  that  the  Pharisees  of  history  are 
not  those  of  the  Gospel?  But  Moses  does  not  confine  the  keep- 
ing of  his  precepts  to  individuals — he  cites,  as  an  example,  a  whole 
nation  generously  pardoning  one  that  had  enslaved  it  for  centuries; 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Egyptians  and  Jews.  And  what  does  Moses 
enjoin  on  the  latter,  just  escaped  from  the  yoke  of  Egypt  ?  Naught 
but  pardon  and  love  to  their  most  cruel  foes.  Forgetting,  with  ad- 
mirable charity,  the  sanguinary  laws  that  from  time  to  time  fell  upon 
his  people,  Moses  sees  in  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  only  that  an  asy- 
lum was  given  to  Israel — air,  water,  and  burial  ground ; — and  yet 
the  waters  were  reddened  with  their  blood,  the  air  still  rang  with 
their  cries,  the  earth  was  bedewed  with  their  tears.  The  words  of 
Moses  :  Thou  shall  not  hate  the  Egyptian,  for  thou  hast  been  a  stranger 
in  his  land,  would  be  the  bitterest  irony,  were  they  not  the  most  re- 
fined charity.  Is  this  to  hate  one's  enemies  f  So  the  prophets  did 
but  follow  the  Mosaic  spirit  in  urging  the  forgiveness  of  injury. 
Did  not  Solomon  say,  (Pro.  xxiv.  17,  18)  :  "  If  thou  seest  thine 
enemy  fall  or  err,  rejoice  not,  lest  the  Eternal  see  it,  condemn  thee, 
and  bring  all  the  evil  on  thy  head."  "The  reasonable  mania 
noble,  he  glories  in  pardoning  injury.  (Prov.  xix.  11.")  And 
elsewhere  (Ib.  xvii.  5)  "He  who  rejoiceth  at  another's  misfor- 
tune shall  himself  receive  no  pardon."  "  Do  not  say,  '  I  shall  pay 
evil  with  evil;'  trust  in  God  and  he  will  assist  thee:  nor,  'As  he  has 
done  to-  me,  so  shall  I  to  him  ;  I  shall  pay  him  according  to  his 
deeds  (Prov.  xx.  22;  xxiv.  29)  /  "  Did  not  his  father  David  say  (Ps. 
vii.  5,  6) ,  "O  God,  have  I  paid  evil  with  evil  ?  .  .  .  Let  mine  enemy 
persecute,  strike,  trample  me  under  foot,  and  sink  my  glory  for 
ever  !  "  Was  Paul  the  first  to  say  what  we  read  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  (xii.  20)  :  "  If  thine  enemy  hunger,  give  him  to  eat, 
"be  thirsty,  give  him  to  drink,  for  by  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  burn- 
ing coals  on  his  head."  No  ;  these  are  the  exact  words  of  Solomon 
(Prov.  xxv.  22)  from  whom  Paul  took  them.  And  in  Job  what  lan- 
guage! "  I  call  God  to  witness  that  I  never  rejoiced  at  mine  enemy's 
hurt  (xxxi.  29) ."  And  is  not  the  voice  of  the  Pharisees  heard  too 
in  this  touching  concert  ?  Samuel  the  Little,  the  colleague  of  the 
Gamaliel  who  was  Paul's  teacher,  adopted  as  a  motto  the  above- 
cited  words  of  Solomon,  "  If  thou  see  thine  enemy  fall,  &c.";  re- 
peating them  with  such  a  preference  that,  though  Solomon's,  they 


88  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

are  found  in  the  Mischna  under  his  name.  "We  have  seen  Ben  Azai 
front  the  whole  law  with  these  words  from  Genesis,  "  God  created 
man  in  his  own  image,"  and  why  he  took  them  as  his  principle  of 
action  in  preference  to  all  others.  "  Give  not  evil  for  evil,"  says 
the  Zohar,  "  but  trust  thou  in  God."  If  Solomon  (Prov.  xvii.  13) 
says,  "  Evil  will  always  be  with  the  ungrateful  man,  with  him  who 
pays  good  with  evil,"  the  Pharisees  push  this  severity  much  farther, 
saying:  Yes,  and  upon  him  too  vrho  gives  evil  for  evil  let  the  same  curse 
jail.  Does  not  the  Law  say,  If  thou  see  thine  enemy's  ox  strayed,  return  it 
to  him  ?  "  Moses  complains  to  God,  that  the  Israelites  threaten  to 
stone  him — "Go,"  says  God,  "before  all  the  people";  meaning,  as 
says  the  Midrasch  Babbi,  Imitate  me;  does  not  God  pay  evil  with  good? 
Well,  thou  too  shouldst  give  Israel  good  for  evil. 

We  have  seen  Moses  command  his  people,  whose  wounds,  from 
their  Egyptian  servitude,  were  still  bleeding,  to  love  their  enemies, 
and  what  is  more,  their  political  enemies.  Here  is  an  example  of 
tho  constant  reaction  of  Jewish  ethics  upon  .the  civil  polity,  ruling 
this  polity  and  making  it  noble  and  clement.  But  in  whom  is  the 
spirit  of  nationality  more  quick  and  keen  than  in  the  Pharisees, — - 
as  witness  the  austere  dispositions  and  extreme  precautions  with 
which  they  are  reproached  ?  Still,  have  they  never  raised  them- 
selves to  those  serene  hights,  where  even  the  mast  generous  pas- 
sions are  hushed,  and  where  the  peace  that  pervades  you  leaves  no*- 
thing  possible  but  love  ?  Yes,  the  Pharisees  have  had  such  mo- 
ments,— when  their  weeping  country  herself  could  extract  from 
them  only  a  cry  of  pardon.  The  Bible  says  that,  on  their  return 
from  battle,  flushed  with  victory,  the  Israelite  soldiers  sang:  Praise 
the  Lvrd,  for  his  love  is  everlasting.  A  word  is,  however,  wanting  to 
this  formula,  viz  :  for  it  is  good  (KI  TOB)  .  Is  it  chance  or  design  ? 
No  one  knows.  The  Pharisees  have  always  regarded  it  as  a  sign  of 
mourning,  avoid  in  the  national  joy;  for  God,  they  say,  rejoices 
not  at  the  fall  of  the  wicked.  A  still  more  delicate  thought — On 
the  morning  of  the  day  the  Egyptians  were  drowned  in  the  Bed 
Sea,  the  angels,  they  say,  presented  themselves  before  the  throne  of 
God  to  sing  as  usual  his  praise.  "  Silence,"  says  the  Eternal,  "  my 
creatures  are  about  to  perish  in  the  waters  and  ye  would  sing  ! "" 
The  Israelites,  too,  even  to  this  day,  imitate  the  angels,  and  on  the 
\  seventh  day  of  Passover,  by  the  express  order  of  their  masters  the 
Pharisees,  do  not  complete  the  praise-formula  (Hallel) ,  their  joy 
is  not  unalloyed,  there  is  a  void— it  is  sorrow  for  the  Egyptians.  Is 
it  at  least  permitted  to  invoke  divine  vengeance  upon  the  head  of 
our  persecutors  ?  And  did  Paul  teach  something  new  when  he  said: 
Bless  those  who  persecute  you  and  do  not  curse  them  f  The  Pharisees 
say  as  much,  and  perhaps  more  ;  for  not  only  will  they  not  curse 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.    *  89 

their  enemy,  but  they  will  not  even  complain  of  him  at  the  divine 
bar.  "  Woe  to  the  accuser,  still  more  than  to  the  accused  !  "  They 
add,  "  If  thou  accuse  thy  brother,  thine  own  case  shall  be  examined 
before  his;  thy  punishment  shall  precede  that  for  which  thou  askest 
against  him."  "What  ought  we  do?"  says  Paul  (Rom.  xii.  19). 
"Not  to  take  vengeance,  'but  leave  it  to  God."  This  is  a  little  different 
from  the  command  given  in  verse  14,  to  bless  one's  enemies  ;  still  it 
suffices  for  poor  human  nature,  and  is  moreover  what  the  doctors 
require.  "  What  shall  I  do  to  these  men  who  persecute  me  and 
whom  I  could  hand  over  to  the  authorities?  "  asks  one  of  his  col- 
league. "Be  resigned,"  says  the  other,  "and  trust  in  God;  he 
will  render  them  powerless."  Or  again  :  "  Let  the  dawn  and  the 
evening  twilight  always  find  thee  in  the  Beth-Hamidrasch,  and  they 
will  cease  of  themselves."  Are  we  allowed  at  least  to  reply  to  those 
who  insult  us  ?  Those  who  answer  not  insult  by  insult,  who  bear  injury 
without  murmur,  who  act  from  love  and  rejoice  not  at  misfortune,  for 
them  has  it  been  written :  '  The  friends  of  God  shall  be  as  the  sun  in  all 
his  strength.1 

What  is  the  reward  of  this  pardon  of  our  enemies  ?  It  is  pardon 
for  ourselves.  He  who  forgives  not,  shall  not  get  forgiveness  him- 
self. We  read  in  Matthew  (vi.  14) :  "  If  you  pardon  men  their  of- 
fenses, your  heavenly  Father  will  pardon  yours,  but  if  you,"  &c. 
Is  not  this  the  thousand-times  repeated  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  ? 
If  Moses  says  that  God  has  tolerance  for  sin,  and  pardons  rebellion, 
the  Pharisees  interpret  this  after  their  fashion:  "  Whose  sins  does 
God  pardon?  His,  who  himself  pardons  injury."  "Whoever  is 
quick,  they  say,  to  forgive,  his  sins  too  shall  be  forgiven." 

But  the  practice  of  the  Pharisees  is  no  less  eloquent.  Prayers 
were  offered  against  a  great  drought  that  was  producing  famine.  R. 
Eliezar,  R.  Akiba's  master,  fasts  and  prays  to  no  purpose  ;  rain  is 
far  off.  R.  Akiba  fasts  likewise  and  prays:  Our  Father,  our  King, 
we  have  no  other  King  but  thee  !  Pity  us,  O  Father,  for  thine  own 
love's  sake  !  And  clouds  soon  covered  the  sky  and  an  abundant  rain 
fell.  "  Is  it  that  the  one  of  these  doctors  is  greater  or  holier  than 
the  other  ? "  asks  the  Talmud.  No,  it  is  simply  that  he  forgives 
more  easily.  This  same  Akiba  one  day  asks  R.  Nehounia  the  Elder: 
"By  what  merit  hast  thou  reached  this  great^  age  ?"  "  My  son," 
said  the  holy  old  man,  "  I  have  never  taken  presents  and  never  re- 
fused forgiveness."  And  to  a  similar  question  another  doctor  re- 
plied :  "  I  have  never  lain  down  with  hatred  to  my  brother  in  my 
breast."  "  God  is  my  witness,"  said  another,  "  that  my  head  has 
never  rested  on  the  pillow,  before  I  pardoned  all  who  injured  me;" 
and  through  these  examples  Israel  repeats  every  evening  before 
lying  down:  "  Master  of  the  world,  I  pardon  every  sin  and  every 


yU  .  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

•wrong  done  to  my  person,  to  my  property,  to  my  honor,  or  to  all 
that  I  have  ;  let  no  one  be  punished  on  my  account."  This  is  not  all, 
adds  another  authority:  "  No  person  has  ever  done  me  evil,  that  I 
have  not  pardoned  him,  and  even  from  that  day  done  what  I  could 
to  serve  him  (Zohar) . 

The  Gospel  prescribes  also  the  offender's  duty.  If  thou  bring 
thine  offering  to  the  altar,  and  then  remember  that  thy  brother  hath 
aught  against  thee,  be  thou  first  reconciled  to  thy  brother  "  (Mat. 
v.  23) .  Is  not  this  the  echo  of  the  ancient  Baraita  ?  "  Though  the 
offender  should  sacrifice  all  the  sheep  of  Arabia,  he  shall  not  be 
free  before  asking  the  pardon  of  the  offended."  Charity  is  more 
than  all  sacrifices.  "  I  love  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,"  said  tbe 
prophet.  When  there  is  charity,  say  in  their  turn  the  Pharisees,  even 
idolatry  is  tolerated.  The  holy  name  of  God  is  often  blotted  out 
by  the  bitter  waters,  that  the  married  may  be  reconciled  (Numb.  v. 
25) ,  say  they  elsewhere.  But  in  vain  shall  we  search  in  the  Phari- 
saical writings  for  what  immediately  follows  the  Gospel  precept, — 
viz.,  the  motive  of  the  reconciliation :  Agree,  says  Jesus,  quickly 
with  thine  adversary,  while  thou  art  in  the  way  with  him,  lest  he 
deliver  thee  to  the  judge  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the  omcer, 
and  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  shalt 
by  no  means  come  out  thence  till  thou  hast  paid  the  last  farthing 
(Mat.  v.  25).  We  would,  for  the  honor  of  the  Jewish  name,  inter- 
pret this  passage  in  a  sense  altogether  spiritual,  but  the  context 
forbids  it,  and  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  is  perhaps  still  more 
explicit  (Luke  xii.  58) . 

Both  sides  have  given  our  duties  on  this  score.  The  Gospels, 
as  well  as  the  Talmud,  have  laid  down  the  methods  to  be  followed 
in  its  performance.  If  thy  brother  has  erred  against  thee,  go  and 
tell  him  his  fault  privately  ;  if  he  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy 
brother  ;  but  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or 
two  more,  that  in  the  irouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word 
may  be  established  ;  and  if  he  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  to  the 
Church  ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church  let  him  be  unto  thee 
as  a  heathen  and  a  publican  "  (Mat.  xviii.  15  and  seq.) 

Let  us  now  hear  the  Pharisees.  "  Sins  against  our  neighbor  are 
not  pardoned  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  before  our  having  sought  a 
reconciliation  with  him.  Ii  he  refuses  forgiveness,  return  a  second 
and  a  third  time  taking  with  us  three  witnesses  ;  if  he  still  remain 
obstinate,  declare  to  ten  persons  (the  Church)  that  apologies  have 
been  made  him  and  that  he  refuses  to  accept  them."  And  further- 
more they  say  :  "  Let  not  the  injured  refuse  his  forgiveness  ;  for  it 
has  been  said  of  the  Gabaonites  when  they  demanded  the  lives  of 
Saul's  children  :  They  were  not  of  the  family  of  Israel,  whose  special 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

character  is  modesty,  mercy,  and  charity;  and  for  the  Pagan^  only 
it  written :  They  keep  their  wrath  forever  (Amos  i.  11) .  II  it^,; 
actual  injury  only  that  apologies  should  be  made?  —  Are  they  nc 
required  as  well  for  ungracious  words  and  proposals  ?  Whoever, 
says  the  Talmud,  afflicts  his  neighbor,  even  by  mere  words,  is 
obliged  to  ask  his  pardon.  And  if  the  offended  man  has  died,  then 
take  ten  persons  with  thee,  stand  before  his  tomb,  and  say:  '  I  have 
sinned  against  the  God  of  Israel  and  against  thee '  (the  dead) . 

Did  the  Pharisees,  so  prone  to  forgiveness,  always  wait,  as  was 
their  privilege,  till  apologies  were  made  them  ?  We  have  already 
seen  that  their  custom  was  to  close  each  day  by  a  general  and  spon- 
taneous forgiveness.  Did  they  never  push  their  humility  to  the 
degree  of  provoking  by  all  means  a  reconciliation?  Their  history 
furnishes  us  with  more  than  one  example  of  this  noble  virtue.  It 
tells  us  that  Eabbi  Zera  did  not  cease  to  put  himself  in  the  way  of 
an  offender  waiting  impatiently  for  the  least  indication  of  a  wish  on 
his  part  for  reconciliation.  But  their  heroism  went  further  still. 
Rab  (Abba  Arikha) ,  the  immediate  disciple  of  Juda  the  Holy,  and 
whose  name  is  one  of  the  most  illustrious  in  Talmudical  annals, 
was  affronted  by  a  butcher.  Twelve  whole  months  passed  and  the 
buteher  showed  no  sign  of  sorrow.  The  evening  of  the  day  of 
Atonement  at  length  arrived.  What  does  the  Pharisee  Doctor  do  ? 
He  simply  goes  himself  to  ask  pardon  of  the  butcher.  He  knocks 
at  his  door.  The  butcher,  not  deigning  even  to  open  the  door  for 
him,  looks  out  the  window  "  'T  is  thou,  Abba  ?  "  he  says.  "Away 
with  thee,  then  ;  I  have  naught  to  do  with  thee."  Tradition  adds 
that  as  he  was  cutting  a  cow's  head,  the  knife  struck  him  on  the 
head  and  he  died. 

Does  all  this  mean  that  the  Talmud  does  not  show  the  explosions 
which  suffering,  grief,  and  insult  will  sometimes  cause  ?  We  are  far 
from  saying  so.  The  Pharisees  were  not  creatures  of  pure  reason, 
of  abstractions  made  to  idealize  some  virtue  ;  but  real  living  be- 
ings, with  strong  and  generous  passions  and  most  sensitive  to  the 
humiliations  and  calumnies  of  which  they  were  constantly  the  ol?- 
jects.  So,  nothing  wonderful  that  we  have  to  deplore  in  the  Talmud 
expressions  that  ordinary  grief  could  not  force  from  them.  And 
the  Gospels — far  less  excusable  however— the  Gospels,  whose  ex- 
ample and  worth  are  a  thousand  times  greater,  have  they  nothing 
analogous?  Does  Christian  charity  never  falsify  itself?  Beside 
maxims  or  acts  whose  merit  cannot  be  too  highly  appreciated,  are 
truly  others  that  bring  these  books  to  a  mere  human  level.  In  this 
light  must  we  view  the  terrible  threats  Jesus  utters  against  those 
towns  that  would  not  receive  his  apostles  ?  Must  not  the  tree  that 
bears  no  fruit  "  be  uprooted  and  cast  into  hell-fire  ?  '"  Arc  not  the 


92  JEWISH  AND  CHEISTIAN  ETHICS. 

Pagans  called  dogs,  to  whom  must  not  be  given  the  bread  intended 
for  the  house  of  Israel  ?  Does  not  the  habitual  meekness  of  Jesus 
continually  falsify  itself  whenever  he  has  some  reproach  to  make 
against  his  enemies  the  Pharisees  ?  What  become  of  all  those  ten- 
der reproaches,  those  mild  corrections,  that  patience  and  indulgence 
lavished  upon  thieves  and  adulterers,  when  he  has  to  address  those 
detested  Pharisees  ?  For  them  the  most  cruel  imputations,  oppro- 
brious epithets  of  hypocrites,  fools,  blind,  whited  sepulchres,  serpents, 
race  of  vipers,  and  in  short  the  most  dreadful  imprecations.  Father, 
mother,  sisters,  wife,  children — all  must  be  sacrificed  to  Jesus  to 
be  worthy  of  him.  To  follow  him,  the  last  duties  to  the  remains 
of  a  father  must  be  refused.  The  brother  must  deliver  the  brother 
to  death,  the  father  the  child,  and  children  rise  against  their  pa- 
rents. In  judgment-day  who  shall  be  placed  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  son  of  man;  who  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  ?  Those  who  shall  have  done  acts  of  kind- 
ness to  the  least  of  his  brethren.  And  does  not  the  remembrance  of 
unjust  persecutions  make  Paul  too  sometimes  forget  the  duties  and 
language  of  charity?  One  Alexander,  a  smith,  caused  him,  it  ap- 
pears, some  trouble.  What  does  the  abolisher  of  the  Law,  the 
greatest  of  the  Apotles,  say  regarding  him?  "Alexander,  the 
smith,  has  caused  me  much  trouble  ;  the  Lord  shall  recompense 
him  according  to  his  deeds  "  (II  Tim.  iv.  14) .  Is  this  indeed  from 
the  same  man  that  wrote,  •'  Bless  those  who  persecute  you  and 
curse  them  not "  ?  (Rom.  xii.  14). 

And  yet  how  far  is  the  Gospel  from  the  Talmud  ?  The  Talmud  - 
ists  yield  sometimes  to  passions  far  different  from  those  excited  by 
private  quarrels  with  third  parties,  viz,  to  the  love  of  country,  of 
nation,  enslaved  and  trodden  down  by  barbarian  idolaters.  Had 
Christianity  these  legitimate  excuses  of  patriotism  and  nationality  ? 
The  impatience  and  imprecations  of  the  former  are  less  personal 
and  consequently  less  odious.  Much  more — have  the  Talmud  and 
the  Talmudists  as  much  weight  in  Judaism,  as  the  apostles  in  Chris- 
tianity ?  The  Gospel  language  is  divine  and  infallible  ;  the  Tal- 
mudical  (in  what  does  not  regard  precept  or  dogma)  is  in  no  re- 
spect so.  No  Jew  concedes  inspiration  to  the  Pharisees,  as  no 
Christian  refuses  it  to  the  Gospels.  Paul  is  the  Moses  of  Christ- 
ians. The  Pharisees  are  the  Fathers  of  the  Jewish  Church.  Can 
the  words  of  the  one  have  the  same  weight,  the  same  value,  as  those 
of  the  other  ?  No  one  will  say  so.  Besides,  when  the  Jewish 
Church  formulized  its  doctrines  it  was  dominant.  All  its  words 
and  teachings  are  stamped  with  the  most  absolute  independence  ;  if 
had  not  to  conquer  souls,  its  temples  overflowed  with  adherents  ;  ii 
had,  above  all,  no  need  to  refine  on  some  anterior  ethics,  to  flatter 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  93 

the  poor  and  the  humble,  to  make  a  party ;  it  had  one  already,  a 
very  grand  and  imposing  one,  the  nation.  "Whatever  it  speaks  comes 
simply  from  the  source  of  its  doctrine,  a  natural,  spontaneous  jet; 
it  has  no  poses,  it  speaks  and  acts  naturally,  because,  far  from  think- 
ing it  needs  the  assumption  of  airs  of  charity  and  love  to  excite  de- 
sertions, it  is  thwarted  from  without  in  its  generous  impulses;  it  is 
tempted  rather  to  stifle  the  words  of  love  ready  to  escape  it,  to  dis- 
play an  excessive  austerity,  in  order  to  ward  off  attacks.  We  ask 
furthermore,  has  the  ethical  charity  of  the  one  the  same  value  as 
the  charity  of  the  other  ?  Is  not  one  word  from  the  Pharisees 
worth  two  from  the  Gospels  ?  And  these  words,  of  which  external 
circumstances  give  no  explanation,  and  the  natural  kindness  of  the 
utterer  as  little,  traversing  as  they  do  many  generations, — to  what 
are  we  to  ascribe  them  ?  To  circumstances  ?  Or  to  men  ?  Either, 
doubtless,  would  have  killed  all  generous  expansion,  all  charitable 
impulses.  The  glory  must  lawfully  revert  to  but  one  source,  and 
that  is  Judaism. 


CHAPTER 


TO    SESHSTERS. 

OT  THX    PHARISEES'    REPROACH    TO    JESTJS.  —  PASSAGE     FROV    EZEXTEL  —  rHARI- 

SEES  INTERPRETATION.  —  BROTHERLY  REPROOF  ;  rrs  DIFFERENT  FORMS.  —  AARON  TM 

MODEL    OF  A  PRIEST  —  ABRAHAM    THE    MODEL    OF    APOSTLES.  —  DOCTORS    STRIVE    TO 

COWVEBT   SINNERS.  —  TESTIMONT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  —  PRIVILEGES   or   THB   CON- 
VERTED. —  THE  GENTILES.  —  MEASURE  FOR  MEASURE.  —  UNIVERSALITY  OF  JUDAISM. 

Next  to  charity  and  the  forgiveness  of  injury,  the  doctrine  most 
particularly  ascribed  to  Jesus  is  love  to  sinners.  We  do  not  examine 
the  political  prudence  of  a  new  doctrine's  preaching  the  reinstate- 
ment of  so  many  prescripts  of  the  ruling  Church,  and  appealing  to 
all  the  religious  malcontents,  to  found,  like  a  new  Romulus,  a 
Christian  Rome  after  the  method  that  gave  life  and  glory  to  Rome 
Pagan  ;  or  (to  use  a  Hebrew  example)  of  imitating  Absalom's 
greetings  and  promises,  in  David's  anti-chambers,  to  all  the  fractious 
spirits  he  met  there.  Whatever  were  the  motives,  the  fact  of  the 
proceeding  is  beyond  doubt.  Jesus  surrounds  himself  with  all  sorts 
of  sinners,  new  patients  to  whom  he  brings  a  cure  ;  he  absolves 
with  a  word  an  adulteress,  sits  to  table  with  the  dregs  of  the  people, 
and  equivocates  strangely  upon  the  censures  of  the  Pharisees  for 


94  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

not  drawing  near  sinners  to  convert  them,  but  sitting  to  table  and 
making  free  with  them,  before  they  were  cleansed.  Against  the 
Pharisees  he  urges  the  scriptural  and  traditional  doctrines  that  they 
never  dreamed  of  disputing,  and  that  had  been  ever  accredited  by 
the  Hebrews.  "If  a  man,"  he  asks  his  disciples,  "have  a  hundred 
sheep  and  one  of  them  go  astray,  doth  he  not  leave  the  ninety-nine 
and  go  into  the  mountains  to  seek  the  strayed  one  ?  and  if  he  find 
it,  he  rejoiceth  more  over  it  truly  than  over  those  that  had  not 
strayed  "  (  Mat  xviii,  12 ).  In  Luke  we  have  this  parable  too,  with 
others  of  the  same  kind  :  that  of  the  woman  who  lost  a  piece  of 
silver,  and  that  of  the  prodigal  son.  Well!  we  have,  in  a  passage 
from  the  prophets,  both  the  idea  and  simile  that  Jesus  employs 
against  the  descendants  and  imitators  of  the  prophets  :  "  The  word 
of  the  Lord  came  unto  me,"  says  Ezekiel ;  "  Son  of  man  prophesy 
against  the  sheph  erds  of  Israel  and  say  to  them :  woe  to  the  shep- 
herds of  Israel  who  feed  only  themselves  !  Should  not  the  shep- 
herds feed  the  flocks  ?  Ye  eat  the  fat,  and  ye  clothe  yourselves  with 
the  wool ;  ye  kill  the  fat  sheep,  and  ye  feed  not  the  flock.  Ye  have 
not  healed  that  which  was  sick,  neither  have  ye  bound  up  the  limb 
of  the  wounded.  Ye  have  not  brought  again  the  strayed  nor  sought 
for  the  lost,  but  with  force  and  cruelty  have  ye  ruled  them.  And 
they  were  scattered  because  without  a  shepherd,  and  because  a  prey 
to  all  the  beasts  of  the  fields.  My  sheep  wandered  through  all  the 
mountains  and  high  hills,  and  were  scattered  over  the  face  of  the 
earth.  .  .  .  Thus  said  the  Lord  God :  I  shall  demand  my  sheep 
and  seek  them :  as  the  shepherd,  when  with  his  sheep,  seeketh  the 
strayed  ones,  so  shall  I  seek  my  sheep  and  draw  them  from  the 
places  to  which  they  have  strayed  in  the  cloudy  and  dark  day.  .  .  . 
I  shall  seek  the  lost  and  bring  again  those  that  were  hidden,  and 
bind  the  broken  limbs  of  the  wounded.  ...  As  for  you,  my  flock, 
behold  !  I  am  about  to  separate  the  sheep,  the  rams  and  the  he- 
goats/'  (From  this  comes  the  saying  of  Jesus  as  to  the  separation 
of  the  sheep  from  the  goats  at  the  last  judgment. )  Here  is  unques- 
tionably the  model  which  long  preceded  Jesus  and  his  doctrine,  and 
which  he  could  not  forget  in  his  utterances.  But  we  must  examine 
more  closely  what  the  Pharisees  taught  on  this  subject  and  see  if 
they  entertained  the  aversion  and  estragemnent  towards  the  sinner 
with  which  the  Gospels  reproach  them. 

Two  things  appear  from  Jesus'  utterances  on  this  subject :  First, 
the  duty  of  working  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  the  charity 
we  should  entertain  towards  them ;  and  second,  the  greatness  of 
those  same  sinners  when  converted,  the  place  they  occupy  in  God '3 
love,  and  the  glorious  crown  promised  them.  We  shall  not  inquire 
of  the  Bible  if  these  ideas  are  unknown  to  the  Pharisees,  as  we 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  95 

have  just  seen  what  Ezekiel  writes.  There  is,  however,  a  precept 
that  forms  a  transition  from  the  Bible  thoughts  on  this  question  to 
the  Pharisaical  ones,  viz.,  fraternal  correction;  and  it  is  one  of 
those  subjects  which,  without  tradition,  lose  some  of  their  value  in 
the  Mosaic  Law.  Its  literal  signification  is  an  amicable  adjustment 
of  disputes  between  friends.  It  is  Pharisaical  tradition  alone 
that  points  out  the  duty  of  striving  for  the  conversion  of  sinners, 
rigorously  enjoining  its  practice,  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  our  self- 
love,  at  the  risk  of  the  rudest  affronts, — in  short,  at  every  hazard 
save  that  of  humiliating  the  sinner.  For,  beside  the  precept  to 
fraternal  admonition,  the  Pharisees  see  a  provision  and  limitation 
against  abuse,  in  the  words  of  Moses  as  interpreted  by  them  : 
"  Reprove  him,  but  always  so  that  thou  dost  not  expose  thyself  to 
sin  ;  that  is,  to  humiliate  and  put  to  shame  thy  neighbor."  And, 
what  is  remarkable,  it  is  this  very  subject  that  draws  from  the 
Pharisees  the  assertion  upon  which  Jesus  bases  his  excessive  toler- 
erance  towards  the  sinner,  viz :  that  no  one  is  free  from  sin,  and 
that  consequently  no  one  has  the  right  to  judge  too  severely  hi* 
neighbor. 

Did  not  Rabbi  Tryphon  say,  respecting  this  precept :  "  I  should 
be  much  surprised,  were  there  any  in  this  generation  who  know 
how  to  reprove.  I  should  be  much  more  so,  replies  another,  were 
there  any  who  know  how  to  profit  by  a  reproof ;  for  my  part,  I 
should  be  so  only  were  I  told  that  some  have  the  right  to  reprove  ; 
for,  if  one  say  to  another :  '  Take  out  the  straw  that  is  in  thine 
eye,'  he  would  get  for  answer:  '  Take  out  the  beam  that  is  in  thine 
own.'"*  If  I  mistake  not,  here  are  both  the  language  and  the 
ideas  of  the  Gospel,  less  the  abuse  there  made  of  them. 

We  shall  not  mention  the  Hebrew  institutions  whose  only  object 
was  to  bring  the  strayed  to  the  right  way  ;  or  that  exhortation  to 
which  Jesus  owed  many  an  inspiration  and  which  rang  continually 
through  the  portico  of  the  temple,  in  the  synagogues  and  public 
places,  when,  in  time  of  great  public  calamity,  the  whole  people 
were  assembled  about  the  oldest  and  most  venerable  Doctors,  who 
spoke  to  the  weeping  multitude  the  following  words  preserved  in  the 
Mischna :  f  "  My  brothers,  it  is  neither  hair-cloth  nor  fasting  that 
obtains  pardon  for  you ;  for  the  Bible  says  not  that  God  had  regard 
to  the  hair-cloth  and  fasting  of  the  Ninevites,  but  truly  to  their 
repentance  and  amendment.  And  it  is  moreover  written  (Joel  ii,  13) , 
Rend  your  hearts  and  not  your  garments."  The  Pharisees  had  so 
high  an  idea  of  the  conversion  of  sinners,  that  the  words  of  the 
prophet  respecting  Aaron,  viz.,  "  he  drew  many  from  sin,"  %  suffice 

*  Talmud  Arachin,  folio  16.  t  Talmud  Taanith,  folio  15,  So.  *  Malachi,  ii.  6. 


96  JEWISH  AND  CHKISTIAN  ETHICS. 

them  to  build  a  splendid  edifice,  that  need  not  envy  the  most  tender 
Gospel  effusions  in  favor  of  sinners.  "  How,"  they  ask,  "  did  Aaron 
win  men  from  sin  ?  Whenever  he  found  that  any  one  was  following 
wrong  paths,  he  sought  carefully  such  a  one's  friendship  and  soci- 
ety. What  was  the  result  ?  The  sinner  said  to  himself :  Oh  !  if  the 
holy  priest  knew  my  conduct,  how  he  would  flee  me  !  And  it  was 
this  constant  thought  that  brought  him  gradually  to  repentance."* 

And  is  Aaron  the  only  friend  of  sinners  mentioned  by  the  Phar- 
isees? David  had  already  said,  "  I  shall  teach  thy  ways  to  the 
wicked  that  they  may  return  to  thee  (Bs.  ii.  15) .  This  species  of 
spiritualization  which  tradition  mentions  respecting  Bible  person- 
ages is  of  much  older  date  ;  it  reaches  even  to  Abraham.  It  is 
perhaps  difficult  to  find  in  Genesis  anything  resembling  an  apostle- 
ship  of  the  great  patriarch.  Some  phrase,  indeed,  occasionally 
invests  the  pastor,  the  Arab  Melkh,  the  soldier,  the  patriarch,  with 
a  far  more  splendid  halo  than  the  gold  and  silver  one  given  him  by 
the  Bible.  But  ten  to  one  that  even  a  sharp  criticism  lie  hard  set 
to  discover  in  tradition  a  clear  trace  of  the  apostleship  of  Abraham. 
If  such  is  believed  to-day  and  is  admitted  even  by  the  Church,  it  is 
derived  from  the  Pha-risees  ;  to  these  belong  the  honor  ;  their  gen- 
ius it  is,  that  has  changed  "the  slaves  got  at  Haran"  into  souls 
of  sinners  gained  at  Haran,  f  Could  such  transformations  be  possi- 
ble for  those  who  did  not  esteem  the  conversion  of  sinners  as  one 
of  the  highest  and  holiest  virtues  ?  And  accordingly  how  profuse 
and  eloquent  are  their  exortations.  "Whoever  shall  save  his 
neighbor  for  the  glory  of  God,  shall  merit  the  heritage  of  the 
Lord."* 

To  love  men  and  to  bring  them  close  to  the  law  were  precepts 
upon  which  Hillel  and  Schammai  were  always  agreed  §.  The  Zohar, 
above  all,  utters  words  surpassingly  sublime  and  tender :  "  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  righteous  man  to  pursue  the  wicked  one  and  reconquer 
him  at  any  cost ;  this  is  the  highest  homage  he  can  pay  the  Eter- 
nal. .  .  Oh!  did  the  world  but  know  what  merit  it  could  acquire  by 
the  conversion  of  the  impious,  it  would  cling  to  their  steps  as  to  life." 
As  to  a  certain  Rabbi  Meir  (who  gave  way  sometimes  to  passion, 
like  Paul  against  the  smith  Alexander) ,  a  crowd  of  Doctors  see  in 
the  sinner  only  a  sick  brother  whom  they  must  cure.  We  shall 
cite  here  but  three  examples  of  this.  The  first  is  of  the  woman 
Berouria,  who,  in  spite  of  the  grammatical  rendering,  found  in  the 
Psalms,  that  we  ought  to  pray  for  the  death  of  sin  and  not  for 
that  of  the  sinner  ||.  The  other  is  much  more  ancient,  being  the 

*  Yalkout,  ii.  87  (Venice  Edition.)  f  Gen.  xii.  5— Talmud  Sanhed.  fol.  99,  &c. 

t  Talmud  Tamid,  foL  28.  §  Aboth,  Chap.  ii.        Q  Berachoth,  fol  10, 


JEWISH  AND-CHBISTIAN  ETHICS.  97 

•wife  of  Abba  HilMya,  -who  prayed  incessantly  for  the  conversion  of 
some  sinful  acquaintance.  *  The  Doctor  is  Rabbi  Zera,  who  sought 
the  company  of  sinners  to  reform  them,  and  was  so  familiar  with 
them  that  he  incurred  the  censure  of  his  colleagues.  But  the  Eabbi 
died  and  then  these  wretched  people  said  in  their  hearts  :  Hitherto 
the  little  Doctor  with  burnt  feet  prayed  for  us,  but  now  who  is  going 
to  pray  for  us  ?  God  touched  their  hearts  and  they  repented,  f  But 
what  better  testimony  can  we  have  than  that  of  the  Gospels  ?  Well, 
the  Gospels  themselves  attest  most  solemnly  the  extreme  zeal  of  the 
Pharisees  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  "  Woe  to  you  (cries 
Jesus,)  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites !  for  you  scour  sea  and 
land  to  make  one  proselyte,  and  when  you  get  him  you  make  him. 
twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  yourselves  ! " 

Once  converted,  the  sinner  need  not  envy  the  lot  of  the  most 
just !  Jesus,  as  we  have  seen,  is  eager  to  place  him  above  the  inno- 
cent, and  that  always,  without  observing  the  limits  which  common 
sense,  justice  and  morality  impose,  and  which  the  Pharisees  are  care- 
ful not  to  overstep.  Can,  indeed,  every  sort  of  convert  aspire  to  the 
same  degree  of  happiness  and  reward  that  attends  the  most  just  ? 
Jesus,  who  wishes  to  attract  to  him,  at  any  price,  sinners,  has  no 
reserve.  Not  so,  the  wiser  Pharisees.  This  is  why  the  converted 
sinner,  about  whom  we  are  going  to  speak,  is  the  converted  sinner 
eminently  ;  he  who  has  filled  all  the  conditions  of  a  great  peni- 
tence,— who,  in  a  year  or  an  hour  of  heroism  and  self-denial  effaces 
a  whole  life  of  licentiousness  or  crime.  Such  a  convert,  indeed, 
has  no  more  eloquent  eulogists  or  better  friends  than  the  Pharisees. 
One  hour  of  penitence  and  good  works  in  this  world,  say  they,  is  more 
worth  than  a  whole  life  in  the  world  to  come;  J  doubtless,  because  it 
can  win  the  latter.  Is  it  that  the  Pharisees  would  not  have  con- 
ceded merit  to  works  and  exterior  acts,  as  one  might  suppose  from 
the  imputations  of  the  Gospel  ?  Far  from  it !  The  Pharisees  are 
so  far  from  being  satisfied  with  a  mere  formulism,  with  acts  origi- 
nating in  no  conviction  or  feeling,  that  they  have  established  an 
important  distinction  with  respect  to  the  indispensable  interior 
changes — one  that  might  surprise  us,  did  we  not  already  know  that 
the  epithet,  "  Beligion  of  love,"  belongs  not  exclusively  to  Christi- 
anity. This  distinction  is  :  if  it  be  through  fear  of  the  power,  the 
wrath,  or  even  the  greatness  of  God  that  a  sinner  repents,  the  sina 
he  has  committed  will  be  reckoned  against  him  only  as  faults,  as 
mere  omissions ;  but  if  it  be  through  a  disinterested  love  of  God 
and  of  his  perfections,  then  his  sins  are  counted  as  merits ;  what- 
ever up  to  that  time  was  a  cause  of  condemnation,  now  becomes  a 
title  to  glory  and  eternal  happiness  g.  And  what  is  this  happiness  ? 

*  Taanith,  fol.  23.        t  Sanhed,  foL  37.        1  Aboth,  Chap.  iv.        §  Talmud.  Yoma,  fol.  86. 


98  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

According  to  the  most  moderate  of  the  Doctors,  it  is  all  the  prom-' 
ises  made  by  the  prophets  to  Israel  *.  "All  the  prophecies,"  say 
they,  "  refer  but  to  penitents;  as  to  the  jnst  themselves,  for  them  it 
is  written :  *  No  eye,'  O  God,  '  but  thine,  has  seen  their  reward.'" 
But  other  Doctors  go  much  further,  and  hesitate  not  to  tell  us, 
"the  just,  the  perfect,  will  not  be  worthy  to  sit  with  ptenitents  in 
the  world  to  come."  f 

To  cite  all  we  could  on  this  subject  would  be  never  to  end. 
They  who  said,  "we  must  take,  as  leader,  one  who  has  frightful 
reptiles  on  his  back"  (a  sinful  past),  so  that  if  he  grew  proud, 
they  could  say  to  him,  look  behind! — have  not  blushed  to  give  us  as 
guides  and  models  men  come  from  the  worst  slime  of  immorality 
and  Paganism.  For  them,  what  else  is  the  father  of  the  human  race 
but  a  penitent.  Abraham,  his  father  Tarech,  his  son  Ishmael,  Reu- 
ben, one  of  the  twelve  fathers  of  the  nation,  Aaron  himself,  who 
so  well  taught  others  to  repent,  have  they  not  been  sinners  ?  Is 
not  David,  the  King  of  Israel,  the  Pharisees'  representative  of 
all  sinners  ?  %  Who  are  sunk  deeper  in  all  kinds  of  sin  than  Achab 
and  Manassah?  Still  they  are  models  of  penitence,  whom  the 
Pharisees  praise  to  envy  §.  And  who  are  Schemaia  and  Abtalion, 
the  fathers  and  oracles  of  the  Pharisaical  school,  if  not  converted 
Pagans  ?  And  did  pure  Israelitic  blood  flow  in  the  veins  of  Bag- 
Bag  and  Ben  Hehe — him  who  said  :  "  The  reward  shall  be  propor- 
tioned to  the  suffering,"  ||  — and  of  the  great  Chaldean  commentator 
Ankylos,  and  Rabbis  Akiba  and  Meir,  and  many  more?  The 
Pharisees  honor  themselves  by  saying  that  one  came  from  the 
Amalekite,  Aman ;  another  from  Sennacherib;  another  yet,  from 
Sisera,  who  were  not,  as  we  know,  heroes  of  sanctity.  Eabbi  Sim- 
eon Ben  Lakish  was  a  highway  robber,  and  Rabbi  Eleazar  Ben 
Dourdeya  a  libertine.  And  how  pathetic  the  language  of  Juda,  the 
Holy,  as  to  the  latter.  On  being  told  that  this  sinner,  after  a  peni- 
tence of  a  few  moments,  had  died,  he  wept  and  said  :  "  There  are 
those  who  gain  eternal  happiness,  only  after  long  years  of  toil  J 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  some  who  gain  it  in  a  few  mo- 
ments." fl 

And  is  the  lot  of  converted  Pagans  inferior  ?  This  God  of  Israel, 
this  local  and  national  fetich  that  Yoltaire  and  others  have  imag- 
ined, does  not  disdain  to  send  his  prophet  to  convert  the  Ninevites. 
"Thou  truly,  hast  had  pity  for  this  gourd  that  cost  thee  neither 
labor  nor  trouble,"  said  he  to  this  Jew  wha  could  not  rise  to  the 


*  Talmud  Sanhed,  fol.  99.       f  Talmud  Berach,  i. oL  34.        tt  Talmud  Aboda  Zara,  foL  5. 
f      ke  Rabbi  Eliezer,  xli.       ||  Aboth,  Chap.  v.  T  Talmud  Aboda  Zara,  17. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  99 

divine  thoughts,  "And  should  not  I  spare  that  great  city  Nineveh 
wherein  are  more  than  six  score  thousand  souls  ?  "  * 

What  example  did  the  Pharisees,  in  their  public  discussions, 
set  before  the  elect  people  ?  "We  have  seen; — that  of  Nineveh. 

Why  is  Israel  called  the  people  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  rather 
than  of  the  God  of  Isaac  or  Jacob  ?  Because  Abraham  was  the 
Jirst  proselyte  f,  and  that  wherever  there  are  true  believers  there  are 
God's  people — a  noble  idea,  which  Christianity  has  turned  against 
the  Pharisaical  Judaism  that  instructed  it.  Why  are  proselytes 
called  the  loved  of  God,  while  the  just  Israelites  are  called  only  they 
who  love  God  f  "  Because/'  replies  B.  Simeon  Ben  Jochai  (the  chief 
of  the  cabalistic  school  from  which  we  believe  Jesus  learned  every- 
thing), "proselytes  surpass  Israelites  as  much  as  those  loved  of 
God  surpass  those  who  simply  love  him  "J.  "Oh!"  he  adds, 
"how  God  loves  proselytes  ;  on  whom  are  lavished  all  the  names 
with  which  Israel  has  been  honored,  viz  :  servant,  minister,  friend  ! 

Abraham,  David,  were  proud  to  be  called  proselytes.  Has  not 
the  latter  said  (Ps.  cxlvi.  9) :  "  God  is  the  guardian  of  proselytes?'* 
But  how  expressive  the  parable  used  by  B.  Simeon  Ben  Jochai  to 
express  the  divine  predeliction  for  reformed  Gentiles  !  The  Gos- 
pel has  nothing  like  it,  "A  father  of  a  family  had  a  flock  that 
went  every  day  to  feed,  and  returned  at  night.  Once  a  wild  goat 
joined  the  flock  and  would  not  go  away  from  it.  The  sheep  were 
led  to  the  park,  with  the  goat  following  ;  in  the  morning  they  were 
taken  to  the  fields,  and  the  goat  still  kept  with  them.  So  that  the 
father  conceived  for  the  goat  a  great  love  ;  he  never  absented  him- 
self from  his  folks  without  telling  them  to  allow  the  goat  to  feed  at 
his  pleasure,  and  not  to  strike  or  ill-treat  him.  And  when  the  goat 
returned  in  the  evening,  the  master  himself  gave  him  drink.  One 
day  the  servants  said  :  "  Master,  thou  hast  bucks,  tame  goats  and 
lambs  in  abundance,  why  this  love  for  the  wild  goat  ?  "  The  master 
replied  :  "  The  former  follow  but  their  nature,  which  decrees  them 
to  feed,  during  the  day,  on  the  fields,  and  to  return,  in  the  evening, 
to  the  park.  But  the  abode  of  wild  goats  is  the  forest.  How  should 
I  not  love  him,  that  has  given  up  his  forest,  his  vast  plains,  his  lib- 
erty and  his  comrades  to  shut  himself  up  in  my  park  ?  "  g  We  need 
not  make  the  application.  The  history  of  the  Pharisees,  like  that  of 
Christianity,  gives  us  numerous  instances  of  the  sudden  conversion 
of  the  Gentiles  charged  with  the  execution  of  some  bloody  decree 
against  the  person  of  the  Babbis.  Thus  the  jailer  of  Babbi  Chan- 
ina  Ben  Teradion  threw  himself  into  the  fire  with  his  victim  ||,  and 

*  Jonas,  fin.  t  Talmud  Succoth,  49,       J  STecliilta— Yalcot,  vol.  I,  foL  94. 

g  Bamidbar  Rabba,  Sect.  vlii.    U  Talmud  Aboda  Zara,  f.  18. 


100  JEWISH  AND  CHBISTIAN  ETHICS. 

the  officer  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  death-sentence,  npon 
Kabban  Gamaliel,  threw  himself  from  the  top  of  the  roof  and  was 
killed — converts  both,  who  had  already  secretly  professed  Juda- 
ism, saving  themselves  by  death  from  a  terrible  alternative. 

The  last  case  was  that  of  Kattia  bar  Schalom.  His  opposition  to 
a  tyrannical  decree  against  the  Jews  caused  him  to  be  suspected  of 
Jewish  magic  and  to  be  condemned  to  the  wild  beasts.  He  was  led 
to  punishment,  when  a  matron,  entertaining  also,  as  it  seems,  Jew- 
ish sentiments,  and  recognizing  him  by  some  Jewish  sign  perhaps, 
cried  out  :  "Poor  vessel,  that  goes  away  without  paying  tollage  !  " 
Kattia  understanding  the  words,  drew  a  knife  from  his  pocket,  cut 
the  prepuce  and  cried,  "  Now  that  I  have  paid  my  toll  I  may  pass." 
At  his  death  a  supernatural  voice  was  heard  saying  :  "  Kattia  Bar 
Schalom  has  attained  life  eternal." 

A  maxim  in  Matthew  (viii.  1)  has  some  affinity -to -the  love  for 
sinners  :  "  Judge  not,  that  you  may  not  be  judged."  It  must  be 
an  old  Jewish  one,  since  Joshua  Ben  Perachia  (whom  the  Talmud 
asserts  was  Jesus'  Teacher) ,  and  Hillel  repeated  it.  The  former 
taught:  "Judge  all  men  favorably."  The  other,  "  Judge  not  thy 
neighbor  as  long  as  thou  art  not  in  his  place  (in  the  same  situa- 
tion). "  For,"  adds  Jesus,  "  as  thou  metest,  so  shall  it  be  meted 
unto  thee,  and  as  thou  judgest  so  shalt  thou  be  judged."  As  to  the 
last  idea,  it  forms,  with  the  Pharisees,  the  conclusion  of  all  favor- 
able decisions:  "As  thou  hast  judged  leniently  thy  neighbor,  be 
thou  too  mercifully  judged  in  heaven."  And  is  it  not  also  contained 
in  that  other  maxim  already  cited :  "  Whoever  invokes  the  judg- 
ment of  God  upon  his  neighbor,  shall  have  his  own  case  first  ex- 
amined." 

But  Jesus  has  also  said  :  "As  thou  givest,  so  shall  it  be  given 
unto  thee."  The  language  and  idea  are  purely  Pharisaical  —  a 
thought  most  familiar  to  this  school :  "As  man  measures  so  shall  it 
be  measured  unto  him,"  says  the  Talmud  •  *  "  and  not  only  the  en- 
tire measure  but  any  part  as  well.  ...  If  all  rules  fail,  one  will 
stand,  and  that  is  measure  for  measure"  Is  it  not  the  last  rule  of 
God's  justice  ?  So,  the  Pharisees  see  it  everywhere  in  history.  If 
the  cotemporaries  of  Noah  were  drowned,  it  was  because  they  arro- 
gated the  power  of  bringing  rain.f  If  Miriam  deserved  that  all 
Israel  stopped  traveling  for  seven  days,  it  was  because  she  stopped 
some  moments  to  watch  the  cradle  of  Moses  exposed  on  the  Nile.J 
If  Samson  had  his  eyes  put  out,  it  was  because  he  consulted  but 
them  in  the  choice  of  a  wife.  If  Absalom  was  hung  by  his  hair, 
it  was  because  he  was  vain  of  its  beauty.  If  the  woman  suspected 

*  Talmud  Sota,  I,  fol.  8.          t  Talmud  Sanhedrim,  fol.  108.          *  Talmud  Sola,  fol.  11. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  101 

'  of  adultery  make  an  offering  of  barley  without  oil  or  incense,  it  is 
because  she  has  descended  to  the  level  of  the  beasts  that  eat  barley. 
If  the  incredulous  captain  was  crushed  to  death  by  the  crowd  of 
buyers,  it  was  because  he  mocked  Elisha's  promise  of  plenty,  say- 
ing :  "  Shall  God  open  windows  in  the  sky."*  And  was  not  Hillel 
himself  inspired  with  the  same  thought,  when  addressing  a  crane 
that  he  saw  floating  on  the  waters,  he  said  :  "  Because  thou  hast 
drowned,  hast  thou  in  turn  been  drowned,  and  such  shall  be  like- 
wise the  fate  of  thy  murderers."! 

"What  we  have  said  is  a  full  answer  to  the  old  charge  against  the 
Pharisees,  that  they  would  monopolize  virtue  and  eternal  happiness 
because  Israel  is  a  people  elect  and  Abraham  its  father.  That  such 
a  charge  was  the  favorite  theme  of  the  early  Christians  cannot  be 
denied  ;  this  was  most  frequently  employed  as  a  reason  to  reject 
Judaism  and  to  pave  the  way  for  theii;  apostleship  to  the  Gentiles. 
From  the  time  of  Jesus  echoed  in  Palestine,  "  Do  not  say  to  your- 
selves, '  "We  have  Abraham  for  our  father;'  for  I  say  to  you  God  can 
raise  from  these  stones  even,  children  to  Abraham."  (Mat.  iii.  9.) 
Paul  calls  Abraham,  "  father  of  the  circumcision;  that  is  to  say,  of 
those  not  only  circumcised,  but  who  likewise  adhere  to  the  faith  of 
our  father."  (Rom.  iv.  12.)  And  more  clearly  in  chapter  9,  verse 
6:  "  But  all  the  descendants  of  Israel  are  not  for  that  reason  of 
Israel ;  nor  are  they  all  children  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. But  in  Isaac  is  it  that  his  posterity  should  be  reckoned;  that 
is  to  say,  the  children  only  of  the  promise  are  represented  in  his 
seed."  And  again  (Rom.  ii,  11),  "  For  God  has  no  respect  to  per- 
sons ;  "  and  further  on  (iv.  11) ,  "  Abraham  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision as  a  seal  of  his  righteousness  by  faith  while  uncircum- 
cised,  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  those  who  believe  though 
they  be  uncircumcised."  And  in  the  17th  verse,  "As  it  is  written, 
I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations."  This  slur  as  to  Jewish 
election  even  free  criticism  has  sometimes  made,  without  reflecting 
that  if  the  Jews  have  election  it  is  that  they  may  be  less  exclusive — 
that  they  may  become  universal.  Yes,  if  they  were  never  fused  with 
mankind  at  any  time  or  place  it  is  that  they  might  be  better  united 
in  heart  and  spirit  to  mankind  in  all  times  and  places ;  and  had  this 
fusion  taken  place,  that  would  have  been  the  end  of  their  priestly 
mission  and  of  the  religious  future  of  mankind.  But  does  not  the 
aspiration  to  this  universality  break  forth  and  show  itself  in  the  his- 
tory and  teachings  of  the  Jews  ?  We  have  spoken  sufficiently  of  it, 
when  treating  of  Man  and  the  Gentiles.  "We  shall  now  but  add  a  few 
special  maxims  to  what  we  have  already  said 

*  II  Kings,  Tii— Sanghed,  folio  90.  t  Aboth  ii . 


102  toVISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

We  have  seen  that,  with  the  Pharisees,  whoever  are  modest, 
merciful,  charitable,  are  of  the  race  of  Abraham,  and  that  whoever 
are  otherwise,  be  they  Israelites  or  not,  have  no  share  with  the 
former.  If  there  be  any  term  which,  on  every  occasion,  the  Phari- 
sees set  over  that  of  Israel,  it  is  man.  David  had  said:  "God  is 
good  to  Israel,  to  men  with  pure  hearts."  The  Zohar  and  the  Mid- 
rasch  eagerly  draw  this  conclusion  from  the  statement,  "  God  is  good 
to  Israel ;  is  it  to  all  those  bearing  the  name  ?  By  no  means,  but  to 
those  alone  who  are  sinless,  to  men  with  pure  hearts."  "  God  loves  the 
just,"  it  is  said  elsewhere.  "  Why  ?"  ask  the  Pharisees.  "  Because 
they  are  not  so  by  heritage,  because  virtue  is  not  hereditary."  The 
sacerdotal  office  is  a  family  gift.  Can  any  one  be  priest  or  Levite  ? 
No;  but  he  who  wishes  to  be  just,  though  a  Pagan,  can  be  so. 
Why  ?  because  virtue  is  not  an  inheritance.  This  is  why  God  loves 
the  just.  "  Why,"  ask  our  doctors,  "  has  the  Law  been  compared  to 
tile  tree  of  life?  Because,  as  the  tree  of  life  stretches  it  branches 
over  all  who  enter  Paradise,  so  the  law  covers  with  its  shade  all  who 
come  into  the  world."* 

It  is  remarkable  that  Paul  adopts  the  Pharisaical  method  of 
interpretation  and  grammatical  distinctions,  to  exaggerate  even  the 
value  set  on  virtue  by  the  Pharisees,  and  to  tear  the  old  diploma  of 
Jewish  election.  What  does  he  mean  when  he  asserts  that,  for  be- 
ing the  seed  of  Abraham  all  are  not  on  that  account  his  children  f 
This  is  the  well  known  distinction  which  the  Pharisees  had  made 
between  the  legal  value  of  the  word  Zera,  see d,  and  BEN,  child ;  un- 
derstanding by  the  first,  all  natural  descendants,  legitimate  or 
otherwise,  just  or  not ;  and  by  child,  the  special  title  of  those 
worthy  the  name  in  either  a  legal  or  civil  point  of  view.  What 
does  he  mean  when  he  adds  that  through  Isaac  should  be  reckoned 
the  posterity  of  Abraham  ?  Nothing  but  what  the  Pharisees  had 
already  observed,  namely,  a  somewhat  obsolete  form  of  expression, 
which  originated  with  the  Doctors  the  interpretation  :  "  In  Isaac, 
yet  not  all  Isaac,"  excluding  consequently  Esau.  Singular  destiny 
of  the  Pharisaical  language  and  ideas,  to  furnish  the  Gospels  all 
their  weapons  to  smite  spiritually  old  Israel,  as  did  the  Komans 
corporally  in  its  external  life  !  Singular  fate  of  the  Jerusalem  of 
the  Pharisees,  harrassed  at  once  by  Pagan  Home  in  the  zenith  of 
its  power,  and  by  Christian  Borne  in  its  cradle,  practicing  thence- 
forth its  parricidal  child's  play — the  one,  spoiling  it  of  its  royal 
robe,  the  other,  of  the  tiara  of  its  eternal  priesthood  !  This  Phari- 
saical Jerusalem,  denounced  as  the  enemy  of  the  human  race,  esteemed 
itself  but  as  the  last  called  of  the  nations,  as  their  vicar,  their  religious 

*  Midrasch,  Techillim,  explanatory  of  Ps.  L  3. 


JEWISH -AND  CHRISTIAN.  ETHICS.  JL03 

representative,  scrfar^was  it  from  aspiring  to-an  exclusive^lection  in- 
imical to  humanity.  So  it  has  not  ceased  to  express  its  thought  under 
every  form.  If  God  appears  to  Israel  on  Sanai  and  gives  him  the 
Law,  it  is  because  Edom,  Ishmael,  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world 
had  been  called  before  him,  and  because  the  law  is  destined  to 
become  the  universal  law  when  the  will  of  God  is  accomplished. 
The  Pharisees  have  a  parable  of  which  we  have  an  inverted  copy  in 
the  Gospels  on  the  subject  of  the  rejection  of  Israel.  The  Gospel 
one  is  known  ;  it  is  that  of  a  king  who  calls  to  a  solemn  feast  his 
ministers,  nobles,  and  distinguished  men,  but  in  vain;  noone  comes. 
Then  he  orders  his  servants:  go  into  the  highways  and  call  every- 
body without  distinction.  Is  not  the  sense  evident  ?  But  let  us 
hear  the  Pharisees:  "  A  king  gave  a  great  dinner  and  invited  all  his 
guests.  No  one  came  at  the  appointed  hour.  They  were  waited  for 
a  long  time,  but  in  vain.  At  length,  towards  evening,  some  guests 
appeared;  the  king  received  them  with*  joy,  and  thanked  them  for 
coming,  saying,  '  Were  it  not  for  you  this  fine  feast  would  be  lost ; 
I  should  have  to  throw  it  away.'  Thus,  they  say,  has  God  spoken 
to  Israel:  '  Thanks ;  for  without  thee  to  whom  should  I  have  given 
the  great  treasure  I  have  prepared  for  the  future  ?' "  * 

We  need  not  comment  on  the  parables  ;  all  can  see  the  resemb- 
lance and  the  vast  difference  caused  by  the  adverse  position  Chris- 
tianity assumed.  In  view  of  these  parables  we  ask  which  of  the  two 
— the  first  assuming  the  original  intention  of  God  to  be  the  exclusion 
of  the  human  race  and  their  admission  to  be  but  the  accident  of  Israel's 
refusal, — the  second,  making  God's  first  thought  to  be  one-of  justice, 
love,  and  universal  charity — one  that  sees  in  the  election  of  Israel 
only  a  temporary  expedient,  an  imperfect  realization  of  the  divine 
idea — which,  we  ask,  is  the  more  noble,  humanitariaiu  and  worthy 
of  Deitjy  ?  The- answer,  we  think,  is  easy. 


104  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 


CHAPTER  X. 

TRUST  IN  GJ-OIX 

[CONCLUSION.] 

TBUST  PREACHED  BY  JESUS — ITS  EXTRAVAGANCE. — Two    I*HARISAICAL   SCHOOLS THE 

JEWISH  PROTOTYPES  OF  THE  GOSPEL  TRUST.— THE  DOGMATIC  FICTION,  MAKING 
.MAN  FREE  FROM  TOIL. — TOIL  IN  JUDAISM  AND  IN  CHRISTIANITY. — PHARISAICAL 
EXAMPLES. — THE  OBJECT  OF  LIFE  ;  the  glory  of  God. — OUR  METHOD  OF  COMPAR- 

>NG  THE  TWO  SYSTEMS  OF  MORALITY.— JUDGMENT  OF  MR.  SALVADOR.  — ITS  INAC- 
CURACY.— HIS  MODE  OF  CHARACTERIZING  THE  SYSTEMS. — MAN  AND  WOMAN. — The 
HOUSE  AND  THE  CLOISTEB. 

.After  charity  and  love  towards  our  enemies  we  come  naturally  to 
speak  of  trust  in  God.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  has  Christianity  taken 
the  most  ascetic  doctrines  of  the  Jews,  those  which  governed  a 
special  sect,  a  society  of  meditatists,  to  make  them  general  rules 
for  human  life;  here,  as-elsewhere,  has  Christianity  transferred  the 
doctrines  and  ethics  of  the  Essenes  to  the  midst  of  society,  of  its 
concerns  and  needs;  here,  in  short,  as  elsewhere,  it  has  pushed 
ideas  to  an  extreme.  As  long  as  it  was  contented  with  the  maxim  : 
"  Enough  for  each  day  is  the  evil  thereof,"  it  but  echoed  the  teach- 
ings of  the  old  Ben  Sirach  :  "  Be  not  troubled  about  the  ills  of  to- 
morrow, for  thou  knowest  not  what  may  happen  to-day  ;  "  *  and  of 
the  Pharisees  who  had  said  :  "  To  each  period  its  evil;"  but  it  is 
quite  another  thing  to  say:  "  Take  no  regard  for  your  life,  for  what 
you  shall  eat  or  drink  "  (Mat.  vi.  25  and  seq. ;  Luke  xii.  22  and  seq) . 
Consider  the  birds  of  the  air,  they  neither  sow,  nor  reap,  nor 
store  away,  and  yet  your  Heavenly  Father  feeds  them;  are  you  not 
much  more  worth  than  they?  And  who  among  you,  by  taking 
thought,  can  add  to  his  stature  one  cubit?  And  why 'are  ye  con- 
cerned for  raiment?  See  the  lilies  how  they  grow;  they  toil  not, 
they  spin  not,  and  yet  I  say  unto  you  Solomon  in  all  his  glory  was 
not  arrayed  like  one  of  these.  If,  then,  God  so  clothe  the  grass 
which  is  to-day  in  the  field  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven, 
shall  he  not  much  more  clothe  you,  ye  of  little  faith  ?  Seek  not 
what  ye  shall  eat  or  wherewith  ye  shall  be  clothed  ?  " 

When  Jesus  uttered  these  words,  he  left  not  Judaism,  he  spoke 
no  unknown  doctrine  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  took  decided  part  with 
one  of  the  two  schools  that  then  divided  Pharisaism.  A  marked 
distinction  separated  the  school  of  Rabbi  Ismael  from  that  of  Eabbi 
Simeon  Ben  Jochai.  While  the  former,  attached  to  the  general 
spirit  of  Judaism,  would  associate  the  toil  of  the  Law  and  of  con- 
templation with  that  of  civilization  and  art,  the  latter — taking  as  its 

"Talmud  Sanhed.  fol.  IOC. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  105 

chief  B.  Simeon,  the  prince  of  ascetics,  the  avowed  author  of  that 
Cabala  which  has  given  Christianity  everything — spoke  a  very  dif- 
ferent language.  It  said,  after  its  master  :  If  man  tills  the  ground, 
harvests,  and  occupies  himself  with  all  material  works  as  they  pre- 
sent themselves  in  their  seasons,  how  shall  he  find  time  to  study 
the  Law?  No;  when  Israelites  do  the  will  of  their  heavenly  Father, 
their  work  is  done  for  them  by  the  hands  of  others  ;  but  when  they 
are  recreant  to  that  will,  they  must  perform  not  only  their  own  but 
the  work  of  others  as  well."*  B.  Simeon  spoke  as  an  ascetic,  from 
the  special  code  perhaps  of  his  sect,  which  was  truly  that  of  the 
Essenes  or  Cabalists.  However  that  may  be,  the  genius  of  Juda- 
ism has  always  inclined  decidedly  to  the  side  of  B.  Ismael 

Abbaye,  one  of  the  greatest  TaLmudists,  gives  admirably  the 
definitive  judgment  of  Judaism  on  this  dispute  between  the  two 
equally  venerable  masters.  "Many,"  says  he,  "  have  done  as  Babbi 
Ismael  directs,  and  attained  their  object;  many  others  have  followed 
the  doctrine  of  B.  Simeon  and  have  not  attained  theirs,  "f 

But  this  doctrine,  so  exaggerated  by  Jesus,  has  a  date  anterior  to 
that  of  the  contest  between  the  Babbis.  It  may  be  found  in  those 
fine  counsels  given  by  B.  Heir,  remarkably  qualified  though,  by  a 
recommendation  to  an  occupation :  "  Let  a  man  always  teach  his  son 
an  honorable  and  easy  trade ;  above  all,  pray  to  HI'TT>  to  whom  all 
wealth  belongs ;  for  in  every  trade  are  found,  now  poverty,  now 
abundance  ;  neither  depends  on  industry  itself,  but  on  a  man's 
deserts."  And  here  the  parable  used  by  Jesus  appears  without  dan- 
ger, tempered  as  it  is  by  the  preceding  advice.  ' '  "Were  the  beasts 
or  birds,"  adds  the  Talmud,  "  ever  seen  plying  trades  ?  Yet  they 
get  their  food  without  difficulty,  though  created  but  for  my  use. 
How  much  more  reasonable  that  I  too  should  find  my  food  without 
difficulty,  created  as  I  have  been  to  serve  the  Eternal,!  If  I  find  it 
not,  it  is  because  I  have  done  evil,  because  I  myself  have  sullied  the 
foundation  of  blessings.";}:  Do  we  wish  something  bearing  a  closer 
likeness  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  ?  Hear  the  ancient  Doctor  Nehorai, 
of  whom  the  Mischna  makes  mention  in  the  ethics  of  the  Fathers, 
and  who,  from  all  we  know,  belonged,  very  probably,  to  the  sect  of 
theEssenes:  "I  shall  give  .up,"  he  says,  "all  arts  and  trades  to 
teach  my  son  the  Law,  for  we  are  nourished  on  its  products,  (by  its 
merits)  in  this  world,  and  the  principal  is  kept  for  us  in  the  next." 
Jesus  adds,  "  Do  not  ask,  what  shall  we  eat  or  drink  ?"  calling  those 
who  do  so,  people  of  little  faith.  "Who  cannot  recognize  here  the  old 
Pharisaical  maxim,  "  Whoever  having  bread  in  his  basket,  says, 


*  Talmud  Berachoth,  foL-55.         f  Talmud,  Berachot  J  Ibid,  Eiddoushin,  foL  82. 


106  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

What  shall  1  oat  ordrmK  to-morrow?  is  a  man  of  little  faith."*  But 
who  does  not  see  the  difference,  also  ;  the  man  of  little  faith,  accord- 
ing to  Judaism,  is  he  who,  having  bread  in  his  basket,  yet  doubts  as 
to  his  subsistence  for  the  morrow  ;  the  Christian  example  is  simply 
he  who  foresees,  or  the  truesage.^  Above  all,  beside  the  extravagant 
trust  in  God  pushed  to  improvidence,  beside  the  instance  given  us 
of  the  beasts  in  the  fields,  not  a  word  in  the  Gospels  to  temper  dec- 
larations so  absolute,  to  encourage  us  to  labor  or  to  condemn  idleness. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  we  shall  search  in  vain  the  Gospels, 
for  any  resemblance  to  the  great  principles  incessantly  preached  by 
Judaism.  Can  we  wonder  that  a  doctrine,  founded  on  the  supposition 
of  a  physical  state  totally  different  from  ours,  on  the  expectation  of 
a  general  transformation  close  at  hand,  that  should  restore  the 
world  to  its  pre-Adamite  condition,  wherein  "  toil  in  the  sweat  of 
the  brow  "  (the  consequence  of  sin)  would  be  unnecessary — should 
speak  as  though  we  were  already  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  Paradise, 
or  indeed  of  the  resurrection-era  seen,  in  the  far  distance  by  the 
Pharisees  also,  and  finely  pictured  in  their  legends,  when  bread  and 
the  tissues  of  Mylet  should  come  ready-made  from  the  bosom  of 
the  earth, |  and  the  Flora  and  Fauna  of  our  planet  be  totally 
changed  ? 

The  consecration  of  labor  would  be  as  strange  for  Christianity 
as  would  be  its  absence  in  Judaism;  which,  far  from  teaching  the 
incarnation  of  the  Word  in  an  individual,  sees  its  embodiment  in 
doctrine;  which,  far  from  making  our  salvation  depend  upon  the 
imputation  to  us  of  the  merits  of  another,  makes  each  one  his  own 
true  redeemer;  and  which,  instead  of  limiting  redemption  to  a  point 
of  history,  to  the  hours  of  Jesus'  crucifixion,  realizes  and  develops 
it  always  and  everywhere  through  a  succession  of  ages.  Conse- 
quently, how  great  the  homage  paid  to  labor  !  What  an  air  of  ease, 
activity,  and  wealth  in  the  bosom  of  Judaism  !  In  it,  we  seem  to  be  in 
the  house  of  a  patriarch;  here  are  agriculture,  arts,  commerce,  gold, 
silver,  cattle;  through  all  is  religion,  blessing  and  exalting  all  things 
by  showing  their  final  end  in  eternity.  Christianity  is  eternity 
itself,  a  forced  exotic  in  the  climate  of  Time,  with  its  immobility, 
repose,  and  ceaseless  Sabbatli.  In  it,  we  breathe  the  air  of  a  cloister; 
here  is  religion,  faith,  supplanting  all  things;  the  end  confounded 
with  the  means  ;  labor  preceded  by  repose.  Need  we  say  that  it  is 
the  very  antithesis  of  Judaism  ?  We  do  not  speak  of  the  Bible. 
Labor,  arts,  wealth,  the  goods  of  life,  are  so  valued  there,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  else  that  Biblical  Judaism  has  been  charged  with 
pure  materialism  by  those  who  mistook  the  Pentateuch  for  the 

*  Talmud,  Sota,  48.  t  Ibid,  Tamid,  32.  *  Ibid,  Sbabbath,  30,  &c. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  107 

* 

religions  instead  of  the  civil  code  of  the  Jews.  The  past,  the  present, 
the  future  of  Judaism,  all  its  history,  its  fears  and  hopes,  breathe  of 
labor,  abundance,  and  the  good  things  of  life.  Upon  this  we  need 
not  expatiate,  for  other  pens  have  well  elucidated  it.  But  what 
merits  well  the  attention  of  the  philosophical  reader  is  that  in 
spite  of  the  powerful  action  of  causes  tending  to  make  the  Phari- 
sees forget  the  Biblical  teachings,  in  spite  of  the  ever-increasing 
sway  of  pure  speculation,  in  spite  of  the  enthronement  of  a  spiritual 
theology  in  the  centre  of  Judaism,  in  spite  of  a  belief  in  immortality, 
in  a  future  life,  in  a  resurrection,  in  all  the  doctrines  upon  which 
Christianity  has  made  shipwreck,  in  spite  of  political  misfortunes 
and  the  continual  overthrow  of  its  temporal  hopes, — Judaism  has 
resisted  all  the  enervating  influences,  all  the  temptations  to  an  exces- 
sive mysticism,  all  the  delusions  that  each  day  was  bringing  forth. 
In  vain  did  tho  world  rage  against  the  old  weak  Israel ;  Israel,  that 
in  its  infancy  struggled  with  the  angel,  found  always  new  force  to 
oppose  to  the  world.  In  vain  did  this  world  display  before  it  all 
that  was  horrible  and  revolting — destitution,  torture,  slavery — noth- 
ing could  shake  its  faith  in  the  icorld,  never  by  it  made  the  synonym 
of  evil  and  sin.  The  more  Judaic  life  was  compressed,  the  more 
vigorously  it  rebounded  from  its  falls,  reacting  with  new  energy 
against  the  causes  that  should  seemingly  have  exasperated  it  against 
the  world.  The  world  !  Christianity  showers  upon  this  its  curses, 
as  soon  as  its  lips  touch  the  cup  of  misery — which  Judaism  drains 
to  the  dregs,  its  faith  in  the  world  unshaken.  The  blessing  to  the 
first  man  ever  rings  in  the  ears  of  the  latter:  "  Till  the  earth,  subdue 
it,  rule  over  the  fishes,  the  birds,  and  all  the  animals  on  the  earth." 
And  Israel  replies  by  obedience,  that  is  by  LABOR  !"  "We  need  not 
say  what  the  Bible  contains  as  to  the  necessity,  the  duty,  the  utility 
of  labor.  The  book  is  within  the  reach  of  all.  "What  is  wonderful 
is  that  the  unanimous  sentiment  of  the  Pharisees  has  not  deviated  a 
point  from  the  Bible  doctrine.  From  the  time  of  Schemaia,  the 
master  of  the  two  chiefs  of  Pharisaism,  the  Synagogue  has  no  better 
counsel  to  give  than  to  love  work  and  to  flee  grandeur.*  If  Moses 
exhorts  us  to  choose  life,  the  Pharisees  see  in  this  industry.^  If 
Solomon  invites  us  "to  live  joyfully  with  the  wife  whom  thou 
lovest,"  the  Pharisees  see  in  this  wife  the  Law,  and  in  this  living 
industry,  wliicli  two  should  not  bo  separated.  +  Does  not  the  teach- 
ing of  his  children  some  art  or  trade  constitute,  with  circumcision 
and  the  study  of  the  Law,  one  of  a  father's  first  duties  -towards 
them  ?  Is  it  not,  according  to  the  Pharisees,  to  make  one's  child  a 
robber,  not  to  teach  him  a  trade  ?g  Is  not  labor  a  species  of  culture 

*  Abotn,  Chap,  I.         •  t  Talmud  Jerushalmi,  Kiddoush,  Chap.  I. 

*  Middrasli,  Koheletb,  §  Kiddoushim,  Chap.  L 


108  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

far  preferable  to  indolent  meditation  ?*  Is  it  not  necessary  lor  our 
health,  and  does  it  not  honor  those  who  perform  it.f  And  is  not 
the  very  name  sanctified  by  God  who  executed  the  work  of  creation.  J 

But  what  finishes  the  picture,  is  the  very  example  of  the  Phari- 
sees, who  humbled  themselves  to  the  lowest  trades,  and  who  thought 
neither  their  virtue  nor  holiness  injured  by  making  stockings  for 
Roman  courtezans  who,  debased  though  they  were,  but  touched 
perhaps  by  that  Jewish  magic  proscribed  by  the  Senate,  knew  no 
oath  more  solemn  than,  /  swear  by  the  life  of  the  holy  doctors  of 
Israel's  country. $  The  fact  as  to  industry  needs  no  long  citations ; 
if  the  history  of  the  Pharisees  prove  anything,  it  is  that  trade  or 
manual  labor  always  accompanied  their  study  of  tho  Law.  "Was  not 
Jesus  a  carpenter  and  Paul  a  tent-maker  ? 

As  in  practical  life  we  adopt  some  general  maxims  for  starting 
points,  so  in  all  our  actions  we  ought  to  have  some  final  object  in 
view.  Of  the  first,  we  have  spoken  at  the  commencement  of  this 
work,  where  we  gave  those  summaries  of  the  law  which  were  made 
the  rules  of  conduct,  but  which,  in  the  hands  of  Christianity,  became 
completely  void.  Now,  has  Christianity  any  object  to  give  us  with 
which  Pharisaism  was  not  previously  acquainted  ?  Paul  has  given 
us  the  watch- word  of  which  the  Church  has  often  made  bad  use, 
namely,  the  glory  of  God.  With  him  all  acts,  however  poor  and  mean , 
should  have  regard  to  the  greater  glory  of  God.  "Whether you  eat 
or  drink,  or  whatever  you  do,  let  it  be  to  the  glory  of  God."  We 
think  we  hear  the  Pharisees  teaching  the  disciples  :  "In  what  little 
sentence  of  the  Bible  is  the  whole  body  of  the  Law  enclosed  ?"  In 
that  from  Proverbs  which  says,  "  In  all  thy  ways  remember  God" 
(iii.  6)  ;|1  that  is,  let  all]  thy  ways  lead  thee  to  and  in  God.  Is  not 
unselfish  worship  one  of  the  oldest  Pharisaical  doctrines?  "  Be  not 
as  servants  who  serve  their  master  for  pay,  but  rather  as  slaves  who 
serve  him  without  hope  of  reward. "ft  Is  not  this  the  worship 
that  the  Pharisees  show  us  in  Abraham,  the  patriarch  of  the  Jews, 
and  in  Job,  the  patriarch  of  the  Gentiles?  Of  the  first  it 
is  written:  "He  loved  God"  (Is.  xli.  8)  ;  the  other  cried: 
"Though  He  should  kill  me,  I  will  put  my  trust  in  Him"  (Job 
xiii.  15).  Is  it  not  in  reference  to  such  men-  that  the  Pharisees 
say:  They  make  peace  for  the  family  both  above  and  below;**  that  is,  in 
heaven  and  earth  ?  But  it  is  not  merely  in  religious  or  moral  acts 
that  we  should  keep  this  exclusive  object  in  view.  "Let  all  thine  ac- 
tions (ways)  tend  to  the  glory  of  God,"  says  Rabbi  Jose  in  the  second 
chapter  of  Sentences  from  the  fathers.  And  what  an  example  Hillel 
presents  !  If  he  took  leave  of  his  disciples  at  meal-time,  it  was  "  to 

*  Talmud,  Berachot,  I,  t  Ibid,  Gitten,  VII.  $  Gen.  II,  .2  Aboth  01  R.  Nathan. 

2  Ibid,  Peeacaim,  113,       J]  Ibid,  Beraclaot,  63.       7  Abotu,  I.  **  Sanhedrim,  99. 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  109 

feed  <j  poor  man,"  and  when  his  astonished  disciples  asked,  "  Has 
Hillel  poor  men  to  feed  every  day  ?"  said  :  "  It  is  this  guest  of  a  day, 
the  soul,  that  I  must  keep  united  to  the  body."  Whatever  he  did 
to  the  body  he  used  to  say,  "  I  go  to  fulfil  a  precept."  Entering 
the  public  baths,  he  said  to  his  disciples  :  "  Do  you  see  those 
statues  of  the  Emperor,  with  what  care  they  are  kept  oiled  and  washed 
and  preserved  from  injury?  Well,  do  you  not  think  we  should  do 
as  much  for  this  body,  the  image  (Ikon)  of  the  eternal  King  ?"* 
And  is  it  in  our  actions  alone  that  we  should  have  this  object  in 
view  ?  Jesus,  true  to  the  Pharisaical  teachings,  is  more  exacting  : 
"  I  tell  you  that  at  the  day  of  judgment  men  shall  render  an  account 
of  every  idle  word"  (Mat.  xii.  36).  "  The  most  trivial  words  even, 
exchanged  between  husband  and  wife,  must  be  accounted  for  at  the 
last  judgment,"  say  the  Pharisees.!  "Thou  shalt  converse  about 
my  commandments,"  says  Moses  ;  and  not  about  vain  things,  deduce 
the  Pharisees. J  David  said:  "  Can  ye  (Judges),  indeed,  (if)  mute% 
speak  (expound)  righteousness  ?"  (Ps.  Iviii.  1) .  And  the  Pharisees 
in  comment:  "What  plan  should  man  adopt  in  this  world?  Let 
him  be  rather  as  a  mute.  For  the  Law  too?  No ;  for  as  to  that 
it  is  written,  THOU  SHALT  SPEAK. "§ 

Our  theme  is  finished.  Throughout  this  work  we  have,  it  will 
be  noticed,  quoted  especially  from  the  writings  of  the  Pharisees  and 
their  maxims,  showing  the  great  part  these  played  in  the  formation 
of  Christian  ethics.  If  the  Bible,  the  Apocrypha,  Philo,  have  been 
but  rarely  appealed  to,  is  it  because  their  replies  would  have 
been  less  favorable,  less  decisive?  We  think,  on  the  contrary, 
that  we  could  have  had  fine  vantage-ground  therefrom  against 
our8  adversaries,  and  have  much  more  easily  and  surely  shown 
the  superiority  and  anteriority  of  Jewish  ethics  to  the  Chris- 
tian, from  these  sources.  There  are,  doubtless,  in  the  writings 
of  the  latter  two — not  to  mention  the  Bible,  wherein  they  abound — 
passages  capable  in  themselves  of  curbing  the  whole  of  the  evangeli- 
cal ethics  ;  and  Mr.  Salvador  has  cited  some  very  eloquent  ones, 
though  there  were  hundreds  still.  But  many  reasons  led  us  to  the 
choice  we  have  made.  The  work  we  might  have  performed  as  to 
the  Bible,  the  Apocrypha,  and  Philo,  both  Jews  and  Christians  have 
done  before  us,  and  better  than  we  could  hope  to  do.  These  sources, 
especially  the  Bible,  are  much  more  accessible  to  all  than  are  the 
almost  unknown  writings  of  the  Kabbis.  The  ethics  of  the  former 
Christianity  will  much  more  readily  accept,  as  long  as  the  Pharisees 
are  regarded  as  the  corrupters  of  Israel's  ethics,  and  Jesus  is  believed 


*  Vayikra  Rabba,  XXXTV.  t  Talmud,  Chagiga,  fol.  5. 

\  Ibid,  Yomi,  fol.  9.  \  Talmud,  Choullin,  foL  99, 


110  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

to  be  its  glorious  restorer.  In  snorr,  il  the  deplorable  prejudices 
that  have  at  all  times  hindered  the  due  appreciation  of  Biblical 
ethics,  are  yielding  daily  to  the  advance  of  light  and  truth,  they 
hold,  alas  !  yet  their  old  tyrannical  sway  over  men  as  to  the  Phari- 
sees. Consequently  justice,  truth,  and  the  religious  interests  of  the 
future  forced  us  to  examine  what  truth  there  is  in  opinions  accredi- 
ted at  the  outset  and  constantly  fostered  by  that  oldest  enemy  of  the 
Pharisees,  Christianity.  Alas  !  we  are  forced  to  say  that  even  among 
the  valiant  champions  of  Judaism,  among  the  bold  defenders  of  its 
morality  we  find  no  one  who  is  not  disposed,  through  some  unac- 
countable condescension,  to  make  enormous  concessions,  to  sacrifice 
almost  totally,  the  ethics,  the  rights,  the  reputation  of  Pharisaism, 
to  the  reigning  system  of  morality,  on  condition  that  the  rights  of 
the  Bible  are  preserved.  With  this  mournful  fact  before  us,  it  was 
reasonable  to  ask  ourselves  if  actual  Judaism,  that  which  recognizes 
tradition  as  its  guide,  as  the  source  of  both  its  ethics  and  religion — 
if,  in  a  word,  Pharisaical  Judaism  ought  to  bow  its  hoary  head  to 
this  creation  of  one  of  its  own  disciples,  of  the  smallest  of  its  chil- 
dren— the  Benjamin  of  the  school — and  to  own  that  if  Jesus  had  not 
lived  it  would  have  been  all  over  with  the  purity  and  spirit  of  He- 
brew ethics.  To  answer  this  doubt,  to  end  a  perplexity  that  ren- 
dered modern  criticism  dumb,  was  this  work  undertaken  ;  to  see,  in 
short,  if  religious  Judaism  has  reason  to  envy  that  other  historical 
and  philosophical  Judaism,  which  they  have  dressed  up.  "We 
humbly  confess  that  what  we  have  given  of  the  ethics  of  the  Phari- 
sees, of  their  ideas  and  maxims,  forms  but  a  very  small  fraction  of 
the  great  riches,  of  the  sublime  thoughts  that  the  Talmud,  the  Mid- 
raschim,  the  Zohar  contain.  Mixed  throughout  these  books,  in  the 
most  irregular  manner  with  lore  of  all  sorts,  thoughts  of  wonderful 
beauty  and  elevation  arrest  the  reader  at  every  page.  Y7hat  we  have 
cited  will  show,  we  hope,  that  the  condemnation  of  the  Pharisees 
cannot  be  a  final  one,  that  a  new  trial,  a  new  judgment  are  indispen- 
sable, and  that  there  has  been  too  much  precipitation,  when,  to  fill  up 
the  gulf  which  separated  the  two  religions,  the  Pharisees  were  cast 
in  ;  the  Pharisees,  I  say,  who  are  truly  rather  the  road,  the  bridge 
that  criticism  should  preserve  for  both.  Af ber  all  we  have  said,  we 
were  grieved  and  surprised  beyond  measure  to  read  the  words  with 
which  Mr.  Salvador  seemingly  desires  to  lead  the  way  for  the  pre- 
tensions of  Christian  ethics. 

According  to  him,  the  Pharisee  doctors,  "instead  of  dealing 
spiritually  with  the  moral  precepts  of  ^he  Law,  turned  them  into 
pure  questions  of  civil  right,  hampered  them  with  restrictions,  multi- 
plied subtleties;  so  that  before  their  own  exhortafions  could  influence 
the  mind,  the  heart  had  time  to  freeze  and  become  insensible." 


* 

JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHIC&  '    **        > Jg  111 

Mr.  Salvador  sees  but  one  of  the  two  parts  played  by  the  Pharisees. 
They  were  at  once  thejiirists  and  the  moralists  of  Judaism.  To  jiiclga" 
of  their  ethics  when  they  speak  law  would  be  as  just  as  to  estimate 
their  legislative  skill  by  their  ethical  teachings.  The  double  char- 
aster  of  Judaism  deceived  Mr.  Salvador.  No  soul  in  the  ethics  of 
the  Pharisees !  But  what  source  more  pregnant  with  emotions  than 
this?  What  touching  language;  what  accents,  now  pathetic,  now 
terrible  or  sublime  !  We  are  moved  with  these  venerable  doctors 
we  weep  for  their  tears,  we  rejoice  for  their  joy  ;  the  very  play  of 
their  imagination,  their  legends  and  myths,  have  something  simple, 
gracious,  and  child-like,  that  smiles  upon  us.  No  soul  in  the  ethics 
of  the  Pharisees  !  *  Why  if  it  have  any  defect,  it  is  that  it  has  too 
much  ;  their  emotion  runs  to  tears,  their  plaints  .are  like  those  of 
the  dove,  their  pain  like  the  roarings  of  the  lion.  This  we  cannot 
help  seeing.  The  same  illusion,  the  same  inability  to  see  in  the 
Pharisees,  the  moralists,  as  well  as  the  jurists,  causes  Mr.  Salvador  to 
add  :  ' '  Being  confined  to  the  minutisB  of  national  and  human  inter- 
ests, they  took  cognizance  of  external  actions  only."  This,  indeed, 
is  monstrous.  We  must  truly  say  that  Mr.  Salvador's  first  blunder 
in  not  recognizing  the  Mosaic  system  as  solely  a  policy  and  not  at  all  a 
religion,  has  brought  about  his  strange  contradictions  to  the  best 
proven  facts.  One  need  not  be  as  well  versed  as  he  in  Hebrew 
knowledge  to  know  that  the  Pharisees,  so  far  from  taking  cognizance 
only  of  external  actions,  penetrated,  on  the  contrary,  into  the  most 
private  recesses  of  the  human  heart,  disclosing  its  weaknesses,  its 
caprices,  its  most  subtle  artifices,  and  demanding  purity  of  thought 
and  sentiment,  the  curbing  of  our  passions,  just  as  well  as  obedience 
to  the  practical  laws,  civil  or  religious.  If,  performing  functions 
so  diverse  as  those  of  legislators  and  of  moralists,  they  kept  the  law 
and  ethics,  each  in  its  distinct  and  unchanging  place,  neither  en- 
croaching on  the  other — are  they  to  be  reproached  by  us  (chil- 
dren of  the  19th  century)  with  this  as  a  crime  ?  Will  Mr.  Salva- 
dor cast  the  first  stone  at  them  for  an  act  that-  constitutes  their 
very  glory?  The  same  forgetfulness  of  the  moral  role  of  the 
Pharisees — of  the  charity  that  is  one  of  the  chief  elements  of 
Pharisaical  Judaism,  has  dictated  to  Mr.  Salvador  the  following 
words:  "  To  the  spirit  of  justice  that  shone  in  the  doctrines  and 
genius  of  Israel,  Jesus  added  the  no  less  precious  qualities  of  sym- 
pathy and  mercy.  These  old  Pharisees  would  be  astonished  to  learn 
that  mercy  and  sympathy  are  the  heritage  of  their  young  disciple, 
they  who  said,  The  mercy  and  sympathy  ice  enjoy  with  God  are  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  mercy  and  sympathy  we  enjoy  with  men;  they  who  have 
seasoned  all  their  moral  teaching  with  so  much  poetry,  grace,  and 
sentiment  I  No;  in  place  of  saying  that  Jesus  adds  to  the  Hebrew 


112  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

ethics  mercy  and  sympathy,  an  impartial  and  courageous  criticism 
would  have  said  that  he  pays  not  sufficient  regard  to  the  spirit  of 
justice. 

Mr.  Salvador  has  characterized  the  two  ethical  codes  by  a  simili- 
tude that  is  not  lacking  in  originality  or  truth.  He  says  that  the 
legislative  and  natural  ethics  of  Moses  is  man  in  the  full  strength 
and  expansion  of  his  faculties  ;  that  the  ethics  of  Jesus  is  woman — 
woman  with  her  sensibility,  grace,  and  tender  yearnings.  One  trait 
is  wanting  to  these  pictures  to  make  them  likenesses ;  to  both  is 
wanting  a  stroke  of  the  pencil  that  the  whole  face  of  each  may  be 
given.  We  shall  not  raise  a  petty  dispute  with  Mr.  Salvador  about 
a  legislative  ethics,  nor  about  a  natural  ethics  ;  we  shall  not  say  that 
to  our  view  the  first  is  as  unintelligible  as  the  second — if  not  more  so. 
Nor  shall  we  say  that  a  natural  ethics  would  possess  essentially  those 
very  characteristics  that  Mr.  Salvador  says  the  Jewish  ethics  lacks, 
namely,  passion,  sentiment,  and  expansion.  We  shall  only  say 
that  Jewish  ethics  indeed  resembles  man ,  but  man  in  his  double  na- 
ture ;  that  is,  the  primitive  man  of  Moses,  the  androgyne  of  Plato,  the 
bisexual  man,  or  rather,  man  and  "woman  reunited  by  marriage;  in  a 
word,  the  family  home.  Yes,  Christian  ethics  resembles  woman,  but 
woman  isolated  from  man,  without  the  counterpoise  of  his  judgment, 
firmness,  and  experience ;  woman,  surrendered  to  all  the  impulses  of 
sensibility,  tenderness,  passion,  anger,  in  short,  the  cloister.  Jewish 
ethics  is  justice  and  charity  united,  each  tempering  the  other  and 
both  working  in  unison  for  the  government  of  the  grand  family, 
mankind  ;  the  one,  having  as  its- special  organ,  the  written  law  ;  the 
other  represented  rather  by  the  oral  law  \  the  one  having  to  deal 
with  society  whose  interests  it  governs,  the  other  having  its  seat 
rather  in  the  conscience  of  the  individual.  Thus  Judaism  includes 
the  whole  man,  body  and  spirit,  life  actual  and  life  to  come ;  the 
first  coming  from  the  Mosaic  code,  the  second  from  tradition,  which 
is  the  code  of  conscience.  When  Mr.  Salvador  ascribes  to  Judaism 
an  exclusive  worldly-mindedness,  thereby  contrasting  it  with  Chris- 
tianity that  neglects  the  interests  of  this  life  for  those  of  the  next, 
he  leaves  out  a  whole  side  of  Judaism  ;  this  he  makes  err  on  the  one 
side,  and  Christianity  on  the  other  ;  he  decides  in  favor  of  those  who 
accuse  Judaism  of  materialism,  and  accredits  the  prejudice  that  the 
Jew  worships  material  interests — all  for  not  bearing  sufficiently  in 
mind  tradition,  for  not  regarding  Pharisaism  as  one  phase  of  the 
Mosaic  system  rather  than  that  system  in  its  entirety.  Had  he  been 
more  orthodox  he  would  have  been  less  assailable.  For  us,  Juda- 
ism is  at  once  justice  and  charity,  the  moral  law  and  the  political 
law,  the  Mosaic  code  and  tradition.  The  one  is  religion  for  the 
use  of  the  nation,  a  collective  being  that  exists  in  this  world  only 


JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS. 

(and  hence  its  apparent  materialism) ;  the  other  is  the  code  of  con- 
science, the  source  of  dogmas,  principles  and  hopes  that  have 
reference  to  the  human  soul  (hence  its  apparent  asceticism) .  Both 
together  constitute  Judaism. 

Is  it  not  the  same  in  dogma  ?  Does  not  the  family  below  (as  say 
the  Cabalists)  reflect  for  us  the  family  above.  Have  we  not  iu 
dogma  also  a  justice,  which  is  the  Word,  and  a  charity,  which  is 
the  Kingdom  ?  And  what  completes  the  analogy  is,  that  the  first  is 
called  the  written  Law,  the  second  the  oral  Law.  Who  can  doubt  that 
the  Cabalists  perceived  the  distinction  and  the  different  roles  that 
we  have  indicated?  Christian  ethics  is  but  charity,  the  celibate 
woman,  the  devotee,  the  nun,  with  all  her  virtues  and  vices,  her 
delusions  and  passions  ;  but  as  cabalistic  Charity,  separated  from  its 
spouse  (the  Word,  Justice] ,  is  ruined  by  its  very  excess — being  less 
than  just  through  its  being  only  charitable — so  Christian  charity, 
having  rejected  its  natural  comrade,  justice,  is  condemned  to  assume 
the  duty  of  the  latter,  no  longer  according  to  the  fixed  laws  of  jus- 
tice, but  after  the  impulses,  the  caprices  of  love  and  passion,  that 
sometimes  impose  on  their  object  what  they  ignorantly  take  to  be 
salvation,  glory,  and  happiness. 

The  way  we  understand  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  ethics 
is  this  ;  instead  of  saying  with  Mr.  Salvador  that  the  first  is  man, 
the  second,  woman,  we  say, — the  first  is  the  conjugal  state,  the  fam- 
ily, man  in  his  entirety ;  the  other  is  a  recluse,  a  devotee,  woman 
without  the  counterpoise  of  husband.  And  this  too  is  how  ethics, 
in  its  final  consequences,  connects  itself  with  the  speculative  side  of 
both  religions — how  Ethics  is  but  Dogma  itself  presiding  over  the 
government  of  the  conscience  and  the  destinies  of  nations. 


DOCTRINES  AND  ETHICS 


ISLAMISM 


MOHAJV1MEDISM: 

ITS    DOCTRINE. 


In  an  investigation  of  the  influence  that  Judaism  has  had  upon 
subsequent  religions,  we  cannot  but  take  notice  of  one  other  sys- 
tem which  has  left  a  deep  and  durable  trace  in  human  history — we 
allude  to  Islamism.  The  natural  limits  of  the  task  we  have  under- 
taken, as  well  as  those  of  the  time  at  our  command,  compel  us  to 
restrict  ourselves  to  a  narrower  circle  than  we  should  otherwise 
have  kept.  We  do  not,  therefore,  enter  upon  a  general  examination 
of  Islamism,  nor  of  the  different  theological  or  philosophical  schools 
it  has  begot ;  we  treat  briefly  only  of  that  great  branch  which  con- 
nects it  with  Judaism,  and  of  its  numerous  and  important  kindred 
sprays. 

Let  us  first  take,  from  a  suitable  hight,  a  general  review  of  this 
religion  ;  let  us  ask  what  is  the  main  impression  it  produces  on  the 
mind  of  an  impartial  observer  ;  what  are  the  links  that  connect  it 
with  Judaism,  and,  perhaps,  with  Christianity  also, 

We  have  proved,  the  reader  will  remember,  that,  of  the  two 
interests  embraced  by  Judaism — the  future  life  and  the  present  one, 
or,  (to  use  a  Cabalistic  expression)  the  superior  mother  and  the  infe- 
rior mother — Christianity  selected  exclusively  the  former,  disdaining 
and  neglecting  the  present  life  and  its  manifest  concerns.  Much 
more :  we  have  seen  how  Christianity,  when  obliged  to  postpone 
the  new  resurrectional  era  it  preached  as  impending,  and  to  con- 
cern itself  about  the  imperious  needs  of  the  present  life,  always 
subordinated  those  needs,  and  the  interests  of  the  actual  world,  to 
that  fictitious,  imaginary  world  of  the  resurrection,  whither  Christ- 
ians thought  themselves  transplanted,  in  spirit  at  least,  if  not  in 
body. 

Judaism,  ever  mutilated,  ever  deprived  of  that  element  connecting 
it  with  this  life,  namely,  of  the  body,  the  family,  society,  country; 
of  life,  in  short,  in  all  its  various  aspects  !  Ever  the  exclusive  cul- 
ture of  the  spiritual  side  of  Judaism,  of  faith  proper,  of  the  indi- 
vidual conscience,  in  which  man,  despising  the  fore-named  relations 
of  the  present  life,  shuts  himself  up  and  intrenches  himself  1 


4  MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTEINE. 

A  phenomenon,  just  the  reverse  of  this,  awaits  us  in  Islamism. 
It  is  the  other  side  of  Judaism,  the  one  abandoned  by  Jesus,  that 
Mahomet  selects  for  his  chief  principle,  for  the  corner-stone  of  his 
system. 

If  Jesus  fastened  on  the  most  esoteric,  the  most  spiritual  doctrines 
of  Judaism,  bringing,  from  the  depths  of  the  sanctuary,  the  most 
abstruse  metaphysics,  to  construct  from  it  a  religion  for  the  million, 
imperiling,  by  the  abuse  of  this  esoteric  theology,  the  very  unity  of 
God — that  popular  Monotheism  which  checked  the  nights  of  every 
audacious  spirit — imperiling  this,  we  say,  by  his  theory  of  persons, — 
it  is  quite  the  opposite  defect  that  we  have  in  primitive  Islamism. 

The  Arabian  prophet — so  little  conversant  with  the  rabbinical  lit- 
erature in  which  Jesus  excelled,  so  far  from  Palestine  and,  above  all, 
from  that  time  and  society  of  which  Jesus  was  the  product,  when  the 
Hebrew  mind  was  in  a  state  of  ferment  to  find  some  central  point  of 
thought,  when  speculations  jostled  each  other  on  all  sides,  and  in- 
tellectual development  had  reached  the  zenith  of  power  and  produc- 
tiveness— Mahomet  could  see  only  what  struck  every  eye,  what  all 
could  comprehend,  what  the  Jews  bore  everywhere  with  them,  viz, 
external  Monotheism  ;  and  this,  accordingly,  was  the  solitary  and 
supreme  dogma  of  his  religion.  If  Jesus  took  from  Judaism  its 
moral,  interior  and  spiritual  side,  and  thereby  showed  himself  the 
disciple  of  the  Pharisees  rather  than  of  Moses, — Mahomet,  on  the 
other  hand,  took  from  it  its  social  and  worldly  side,  and  thereby 
attached  himself  to  the  Bible  and  to  Moses  rather  than  to  tradition 
and  the  Pharisees.  In  short,  if  Christianity  carried  the  principles 
and  rules  of  a  future  life  into  the  very  midst  of  the  present  one,  if 
it  effaced  and  absorbed  in  the  world  to  come  the  present  world, 
imposing  upon  the  latter  the  conditions  of  eternity, — it  is  precisely 
the  antithesis  of  this  doctrine  which  we  get  from  Mahomet.  Ho 
fashions  and  regulates  the  world  to  come  after  the  model  of  our 
present  life,  whose  pains,  pleasures,  passions,  caprices,  etc.  he 
transfers  to  the  future  state,  wherein  is  nought  but  a  prolongation, 
a  repetition  of  man's  life  here-below.  Islamism,  by  excluding  the 
spiritual  side  of  Judaism,  has  barbarized  its  polity;  Christianity, 
by  soaring  beyond  the  social  life  of  Judaism,  has  transformed  its 
religion  into  ascetism.  In  both  cases  is  Judaism  mutilated — deprived 
of  one  of  its  essential  members. 

This  recognition,  however,  of  the  most  striking  characteristics  ol 
Mohammedism  has,  from  our  stand-point,  a  value,  inasmuch  as  ii 
implies  some  real  and  historical  transplanting  of  Jewish  doctrines 
into  the  new  religion  of  Arabia.  Are  these  grafts  possible  ?  The 
sequel  will  prove,  we  think,  that  they  have  actually  taken  place  ; 
the  traces  of  Judaism,  and  of  even  Pharisaism  will  clearly  appear 


MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE.  D 

in  each  detail,  belief  and  precept  of  the  religion  of  Mahomet,  and 
in  a  manner  so  peculiar,  so  exact,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  possible. 
Now,  let  us  see  if  external  conditions  and  the  relative  situation 
of  the  Jews  to  Mahomet  allow  us  to  suppose  this  transplanting 
(incontestible  in  any  case) ,  and  whether  or  not  these  relations  be  of 
a  character  to  warrant  such  an  hypothesis. 

What  do  we  see  in  Arabia,  in  the  time  of  and  close  to  the  per- 
son of  Mahomet  ?  We  see  the  Jews  peopling  in  great  numbers  those 
countries  where  Mahomet's  name  was  about  to  echo,  and  bearing 
with  them  that  religion  which,  during  their  exile,  is  not  to  leave 
them  again  ;  and,  what  is  much  more,  we  see  their  credit  constantly 
increasing,  their  influence  and,  therefore,  their  religion  becoming 
dominant.  History  attests,  in  the  most  formal  manner,  that  several 
princes  and  tribes  embraced  the  religion  of  Israel.  Mahomet  now 
conceives  his  bold  scheme  of  reform.  Will  he  forget  the  potent  aids 
that  are  within  his  reach  ?  Far  from  it ;  as  to  Judaism,  reckoning 
as  it  did  so  many  adepts  among  Arabia's  most  distinguished  chil- 
dren, he  has  nought  but  advances  to  make,  and  thinks  he  cannot 
treat  with  too  much  consideration  those  formidable  rivals  ;  he  wil* 
adopt  a  great  number  of  their  opinions,  their  doctrines,  their  cus- 
toms, seeking  thereby  to  range  them,  if  possible,  on  his  side.  Vain 
efforts  !  These  faithful  Israelites  will  never  renounce  one  part  of 
their  religion,  even  though  it  were  to  see  the  other  adopted  by  the 
prophet  of  Araby;  and  the  world  shall  have  a  new  religion  modeled 
somewhat  after  Judaism,  without  this  last  ceasing  to  be  what  it  has 
been,  or  that  fountain  being  sullied  at  which  other  generations  shall 
quench  their  thirst.  Whatever  results  Mahomet  may  have  expected 
from  these  Hebrew  grafts,  these  have  ever  been  recognized  as  such 
by  every  serious  historian  of  Islamism.  Has  not  an  influence  still 
more  direct  and  continuous  been  brought  to  bear  upon  it !  History 
tells  us  of  the  Jew  Abdalla,  who,  as  his  secretary,  was  close  to  Ma- 
homet's person,  and  who,  if  we  mistake  not,  was  authorized  by  the 
cotemporary  Eabbis  (as  their  books  attest)  to  co-operate  with  Ma- 
homet in  the  religious  reform  of  Arabia.  And  who  can  say  that  the 
purity  and  elegance  of  style  which  is  observable  in  the  Koran  and 
from  which  Mahomet  takes  an  argument  for  his  inspiration,  have  not 
flowed  from  a  Hebrew  pen  ?  On  this  point,  no  weak  testimony  is 
that  of  Judaism's  two  great  enemies,  viz,  of  Christians  and  of  Ma- 
homet's cotemporaries.  Now  both  recognized  the  hand  of  a  stranger 
with  Mahomet  in  the  composition  of  the  Koran,  and  it  was,  as 
Christians  declare,  that  of  the  Jew  Abdalla,  and  of  the  Monk  Seryius. 
The  Koran  itself  lends  force  to  this  opinion,  entertained  since  the 
time  of  Mahomet.  There  are  two  passages  in  the  book  that  allude 
to  the  point,  and  both  testify  equally,  I  think,  in  favor  of  Hebrew 


6  MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTKINE. 

co-operation.  In  the  25th  Chap.  Mahomet  exclaims,  "  The  incredu- 
lous say  :  What  is  this  book,  but  a  lie  that  he  has  forged  ?  Others, 

too,  have  helped  him  to  make  it they  are  but  the  myths 

of  antiquity he  hears  these  things  morning  and  evening." 

Could  he  so  express  himself  respecting  doctrines  that  were  not  of 
Jewish  origin  ?  And  in  Chap.  16th  :  "  We  know  well  the  incredu- 
lous say  :  Some  person  teaches  Mahomet.  For  the  language  of  him 
whom  they  would  impose  on  us  is  barbarian,  and  you  see  that  the 
Koran  is  an  Arabic  book,  clear  and  intelligible."  Here  the  portrait 
becomes  more  definite  and  the  Jewish  type  comes  out  more  plainly. 
The  doubt  refers  to  some  one  who  spoke  a  barbarian  tongue.  Now, 
•who  could  this  be  but  a  Jew  ?  A  monk,  even,  could  suit  badly  this 
portrait ;  for  his  language,  ordinary  or  religious,  would  have  always 
been  Arabic,  and  nothing  but  Arabic. 

Before  entering  on  an  examination  of  the  doctnnes  and  precepts 
of  Islamism,  let  us  mark,  as  we  go,  some  circumstances  in  the  life 
of  Mahomet,  evidently  copied  from  Jewish  history,  either  by  Ma- 
homet himself,  an  imitator  and  plagiarist  of  ancient  narratives,  or 
by  his  historians.  The  cave  to  which  he  retires,  the  choice  which 
he  makes  of  his  twelve  chief  disciples,  recall  to  mind,  the  one,  the 
retreat  of  Moses  and  Elias,  the  other  the  choice  of  the  twelve 
Princes  of  Israel,  imitated  by  Jesus  in  the  election  of  twelve  apos- 
tles. But  what  especially  attests  the  action  of  Pharisaical  doctrine 
and  tradition  upon  the  history  of  Islamism  is  that  spider  that  comes 
so  opportunely  to  cover  with  his  web  the  entrance  to  the  cave  to 
which  Mahomet  betook  himself  to  escape  the  pursuit  of  the  Kor- 
eish, — just  as  the  Rabbis  tell  us  how  David  was  hidden  from  Saul, 
by  a  spider  that  spun  his  web  across  the  entrance  of  the  grotto, 
that  David  might  be  undeceived  as  to  the  uselessness  of  the  spider, 
as  he  was,  subsequently,  at  the  Court  of  Achis,  respecting  the  inu- 
tility  of  madness.  And  such  a  perfect  harmony  with  the  details 
of  Pharasaical  tradition  is  not  the  least  proof  that  this  is  the  model 
from  which  the  anecdote  of  Mahomeirs  life  is  taken. 

The  doctrine  and  precepts  of  Islamism  are  contained  chiefly  in 
the  Koran.  Now,  what  is  the  Koran?  This  word  is  evidently 
derived  from  the  verb  Kara,  to  read,  and  therefore  signifies,  reading, 
what  ought  to  be  read,  and  is  but  an  imitation  of  the  word  mi-karah, 
that  Judaism  has  given  to  the  Bible,  each  term  being  applied,  sev- 
erally to  designate  not  only  the  whole  sacred  volume,  but  also,  a 
section,  a  verse,  or  even  a  word  of  the  special  religion.  But  the 
Jews  apply  other  names  still  to  the  different  parts  of  the  Bible  and 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  of  Parascha  (division)  is  one  not  the 
least  ancient.  Now,  does  not  the  Koran  reproduce  this  appellation 
in  the  term  El  Fjrkan,  (the  divisions) ,  taken  evidently  not  only  from 


MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE.  7 

the  Ptrek  or  Pirka  of  the  Rabbis,  as  Mr.  Sale  asserts,  but  from  the 
analogous  divisions  of  the  Bible,  called  Parascha?  And  what,  even 
are  the  Soioars  or  sections  of  the  Koran  but  the  Sedarin  into  which 
the  Pentateuch  is  divided  ?  Shall  we  esteem  the  other  Arabic  names 
of  the  Koran  more  original, — El  Moshaf  (the  book) ,  El  Kitab*  (the 
scripture)  ?  They  are  but  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  words 
Seplier  and  Kitbe  haccodesch,  applied  to  the  Pentateuch,  or  to  other 
parts  of  the  Scriptures.  The  same  precautions  taken  by  the  Rabbis 
to  preserve  the  purity  of  Scripture  have  been  adopted  for  the  Koran, 
and  the  verses,  words,  letters  even  of  the  Koran,  as  of  the  Bible, 
have  been  counted,  and  they  have  likewise  reckoned  how  many 
times  eacH  letter  in  the  Koran  occurs.  Is  not  this  pure  Rabbinism  ? 
But  this  is  not  all.  At  the  head  of  certain  chapters  of  the  Koran, 
we  remark  certain  meaningless  letters,  the  signification  of  which 
Mussulmen  themselves  do  not  know.  Yet,  how  are  they  interpreted  ? 
In  two  ways,  both  equally  Rabbinical,  the  Notaricon  and  the  Ghem- 
a'ria ;  that  is,  by  taking  them  at  one  time  as  the  initials  of  certain 
words,  and,  at  another,  by  calculating  their  numerical  value,  and 
supposing  an  allusion  to  other  words  of  similar  numerical  value. 

But,  what  to  our  view  is  most  significant,  is  the  idea  Mahomedan 
orthodoxy  entertains  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Koran, — one  altogether 
analogous  not  only  to  what  exoteric  Judaism  but  to  what  the  Caba- 
lists  teach  on  this  subject — which  strongly  implies  the  existence 
of  the  Cabala  in  those  remote  times.  The  Arabs  consider  the 
Koran  not  only  a  divine  revelation  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  work  of 
God,  but  in  a  more  metaphysical  one,  namely,  that  the  thoughts 
therein  constitute  the  eternal  mind  of  God,  and  are  his  word,  his 
L')-jos ;  that  they  exist,  as  some  say,  in  the  divine  essence  ;  that  the 
first  copy  of  the  Koran  has  been  from  all  eternity  at  the  throne 
of  God.  written  on  a  vast  table  that  contains  his  decrees  as  to 
the  past  and  future.  Is  not  this  Hebrew  doctrine  uttered  by  the 
Arabs?  Exoteric  Judaism  had  been  very  explicit.  "  The  Zorah," 
it  says,  is  the  model  after  which  God  "  created  the  world  ;  it  is  but 
one  leaf  dropped  from  the  eternal  wisdom,  the  instrument  God  used 
in  his  six  days  work."  But  how  conclusive  is  the  exoteric  doctrine  ! 
We  have  already  seen,  when  treating  of  Christianity,  that  the  He- 
brew Verbum  is  the  written  law,  and  that  its  spouse,  the  Kingdom, 
is  tradition.  But  what  is  now  very  important  to  remark,  is.  that 
both  these  laws,  scripture  and  tradition,  the  Verbum  and  the  King- 
dom, are  identified  in  a  higher  degree  in  the  scale  of  emanations,  in 
that  superior  Wisdom  called  simply  the  eternal  Law,  Tora  Kedouma. 
of  which,  when  divided,  the  written  and  the  oral  Law  are  but  the 
two  parts.  But  the  Arabian  doctrine  sees,  in  the  eternal  text  of  the 

*  Pure  Hebrew  also;  the, singular  of  Kitte. 


8  MOFAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE. 

Koran,  the  "  table  of  destiny."  Is  not  this,  word  for  word,  what  the 
Cabala  teaches  us  ?  Is  it  not  this  same  wisdom,  this  same  eternal 
Law,  which  is  called  destiny,  fate,  although  in  a  very  different  sense 
from  the  Mahometan  fatalism  ?  We  can  but  glance  at  this  subject 
now.  Let  those  more  favored  than  we  extend  this  curious  parallel ; 
we  shall  be  content  to  have  broached  the  subject. 

It  is  unquestionable  that  the  doctrine  we  ascribe  to  the  Arabs  has 
ever  been  the  most  accredited  among  the  orthodox  ;  that  if  the  sect 
of  Montazales  rejected  it,  from  the  fear  of  admitting  two  deities,  it 
was  from  not  well  understanding  this  ancient  doctrine,  the  true  mean- 
ing of  which  Al-Ghazali  has  established  in  saying  that  if  we  speak 
what  is  contained  in  the  Koran,  if  it  is  written  in  books  -and  stored 
in  the  memory,  it  is  nevertheless  eternal,  because  it  subsists  in  the 
essence  of  God  from  which  it  cannot  be  parted  by  any  transmission 
to  men. 

If  we  ask  what  Islamism  thinks  of  the  interpretation  of  its  holy 
•writings,  we  shall  find  it  to  be  exactly  what  the  Pharisees  and  the 
Cabalists  have  taught  respecting  that  of  the  Bible.  Needless  to  say 
that  they,  too,  carefully  distinguish  the  literal  from  the  spiritual 
interpretation.  But  what  is  noteworthy,  is  the  image  by  which  a 
celebrated  Arab  (El  Jahed)  distinguished  these  two  senses  of  Scrip- 
ture. He  said  that  the  Koran  is  a  body  which  can  change  itself  at 
one  time  into  a  man,  at  another  into  an  animal,  or,  as  others  express 
it,  that  this  book  has  two  faces — one,  that  of  a  man,  the  other,  that 
of  an  animal.  Can  we  not  see  in  this  a  trace  of  the  old  distinction 
made  by  the  Psychics  and  the  Pneumatics,  between  the  different 
classes  of  the  faithful  and  readers  of  the  Bible — one  just  made  by 
the  Cabalists,  and  after  them,  as  we  have  elsewhere  noticed,  by  the 
Christians  and  Gnostics  ? 

We  lay  no  stress  on  the  respect  and  veneration  with  which  the 
Arabs  regard  their  books.  Every  religion  claims  this  from  its  adhe- 
rents, and  in  this  is  no  special  trace  of  Judaism  or  its  traditions. 
But  must  we  not  remark  the  use  the  Arabs  have  ever  made  of  them  ? 
When  some  important  occasion  requires  a  decisive  course  of  action, 
the  Koran  is  consulted.  The  book  is  opened,  and  omens  are  taken 
from  the  first  words  that  present  themselves.  Is  not  this  what  the 
oldest  Pharisaism  has  done  ?  We  shall  not  speak  of  the  custom  of 
modern  Jews.  But  the  Talmud  brings  this  mode  of  consulting  the 
future  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  Josias,  when  it  tells  us  of  the  ter- 
ror of  this  King  on  reading  in  the  Pentateuch,  half  opened  by  him, 
that  prediction  of  Moses  which  condemns  the  King  and  the  nation  to 
exile,  as  a  punishment  for  their  sins.*  The  example  of  the  Essenes, 
of  which^  Joseph  tells  us,  those  of  the  Pharisees  with  which  the 

*  Talm.  Youma.  fol.  52, 


MOHAJOIEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE.  9 

Talmud  abounds,  prove  that  omens  were  taken  from  verses -of  the 
Bible,  read  or  recited  by  children,  either  spontaneously  or  by 
request. 

But  enough  of  the  Koran,  and  of  the  opinion  entertained  respect- 
ing it  by  the  Arabs.  It  is  time  we  should  speak  of  the  contents  of 
the  book, — that  is,  of  Islamism.  This  religion  is  divided  by  Arabic 
theologians  into  two  parts,  which  give  the  essential  elements  of  all 
religions, — the  /man,  or  the  dogma,  faith,  theory, — and  the  Din, 
or  the  Law  and  its  precepts.  Islamism,  as  a  whole,  recognizes  five 
main  articles,  of  which  only  one  belongs  to  the  dogma,  or  Iman, 
the  rest  to  the  Din,  or  to  worship  and  practice. 

The  former  is  the  confession  of  faith  which  every  Mussulman 
consider  as  the  summary  of  his  religion,  viz  :  "  There  is  no  God  but 
the  true  God,  and  Mahomet  is  his  messenger."  But  this  article 
includes  six  distinct  elements :  1.  Belief  in  God.  2.  Belief  in  his 
angels.  3.  Belief  in  his  scriptures.  4.  Belief  in  his  prophets. 
5.  Belief  in  the  resurrection  and  judgment-day.  6.  Belief  in  the 
absolute  decrees  of  God,  and  in  the  predestination  of  good  and 
evil. 

The  four  articles,  including  worship  and  practice,  are  :  1.  Prayer. 
2.  Alms.  3.  Fasting.  4.  Pilgrimage  to  Mecca.  Let  us  examine 
briefly,  in  succession,  these  articles  of  the  Mussulman  faith,  and  let 
us  trace,  if  possible,  that  Judao-Pharisaical  influence  which  we 
have  already  pointed  out  in  the  few  preceding  observations. 

It  will  suffice  here  to  recall  what  we  have  said  respecting  the 
unity  of  God,  so  prominent  in  Islamism,  namely,  that  the  doctrine 
is  pure  exoteric  Judaism  untempered  by  religious  metaphysics,  just 
as  the  Christian  Trinity,  on  the  other  hand,  is  this  very  metaphy- 
sics, separated  from  what  always  controls  its  scientific  march  and 
development,  namely,  from  popular  monotheism.  So  that  Judaism 
has  been,  if  we  may  so  speak,  cut  in  two  at  the  birth  of  its  two 
children,  each  bearing  away  the  half  of  its  doctrine,  and  making 
of  that  half  an  exclusive  creed. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Koran  as  to  angels  is,  that  they  have  a  pure 
and  rarefied  body,  created  by  fire  ;  that  they  neither  eat  nor  drink  ; 
that  they  have  no  need  of  propagation  by  marriage;  that  they  have 
different  occupations  and  modes  of  serving  God — some  singing  His 
praises;  others  interceding  for  the  human  race;  others  writing  the 
actions  of  men  ;  others  carrying  the  heavenly  throne.  But  the 
greatest  of  all  are  Gabriel  (also  called  the  Holy  Spirit) ,  Michael, 
the  friend  and  protector  of  the  Jews,  Azrael,  the  Angel  of  Death, 
and  Israfel,  the  trumpet-blower  at  the  judgment-day.  Have  we  not 
in  this  description  the  most  marked  traits  of  Pharisaical  angel- 
ology,— nay,  of  the  most  special  doctrines  of  Cabalistic  Pharisaism? 


10  MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE. 

That  the  bodies  of  angels  consisted  of  an  ethereal  matter  was  <me 
of  the  most  characteristic  opinions  of  this  school;  it  was  openly 
professed  by  a  great  number  of  the  Church  Fathers ;  it  is,  we  will 
affirm,  at  the  root  of  many  systems  of  ancient  or  modern  philosophy 
(above  all  as  to  what  concerns  the  human  soul,  which  they  believed 
invested  with  a  very  subtile  body) .  This  body  is  a  fire,  according 
to  the  Psalms  and  the  Talmud.*  Each  angel  has  one  certain  office, 
from  which  comes  his  name.  Those  who  intercede  for  men  are 
called  Paracletin.f  According  to  the  Talmud,  Elias  writes  down  the 
actions  of  men ;  and,  according  to  others,  it  is  Gabriel  who  does 
this  duty,  as  the  prophet  Ezekiel  tells  us,  giving  us  all  the  marks  of 
the  scribe  4  Need  we  say  that  the  task  of  carrying  the  throne  of 
God,  assigned  to  the  angels,  is  as  old  as  this  prophet  himself? 
But  we  are  obliged  to  go  to  the  Cabala  for  information  (to  be  sought 
for  in  vain  in  exoteric  Judaism)  respecting  that  quaternity  of  angels 
who  preside  over  the  whole  celestial  army,  called  in  Islamism  Ga- 
briel, Michael,  Azrael,  and  Israfel.  "Where  find  this,  if  not  in  the 
Cabala  ?  It  alone  recognized  these  four  archangels,  who  surpass  all 
others  in  dignity  and  power,  and  who  command  the  four  cohorts  of 
the  Schechina,  and  the  names  of  the  first  two  are  exactly  the  same  as 
in  the  Hebrew  creed.  As  to  Azrael,  no  doubt  it  comes  from  the 
Azazel  of  Moses,  the  angel  to  whom  God  devoted  the  scape-goat  on 
the  day  of  Atonement — the  Azael  of  the  Talmud  and  the  Zohar.f 
Should  the  name  of  the  last  (Israfel)  be  a  reminiscence  of  that 
ancient  doctrine,  that  the  world  must  end  by  a  general  combustion, 
as  it  arose  from  the  same?  The  Hebrew  root  (saraph,  to  burn) 
leads  us  to  think  so.  However  that  be,  one  stone  evidently  taken 
from  the  great  Cabalistic  edifice  is  the  term  Holy-Spirit  given  to 
Gabriel.  How  explain  this  singular  identity  in  the  doctrines  ?  Is 
it  not  the  malkhout  that  bears  the  name  Gabriel  ?  And  is  not  this 
also  called  Holy-Spirit  ?  Why  then  do  not  these  names  always  go 
together,  since  they  represent  but  one  and  the  same  being  ?  We  just 
now  said  that  the  Azrael  of  the  Koran  was  probably  the  Mosaic  Aza- 
zel. Is  proof  wanted  ?  According  to  Mahomet  the  Devil  (Eblis) , 
bore  before  his  fall  the  name  Azazel.  Is  he  not  clearly  the  same 
as  the  Angel  of  Death,  Azrael  ?  True,  two  beings  are  formed  from 
him,  but  is  it  not  simply  the  doubling  of  the  Mosaic  angel  (Azrael) , 
while  he  fills  his  office,  and  Azazel  under  his  primitive  name,  before 
the  Fall  ? 

And  as  to  this  Fall — how  did  it  happen  ?  Here,  the  Pharisaical 
ideas  are  made  quite  manifest.  According  to  the  Pharisees,  the 
greatest  of  the  angels  was  seized  with  a  violent  jealousy  of  man, 

*  Ps.  civ.  Talmud  Chagiga,  fol.  13, 14.  t  Ib.  Shabbath,  fol.  32,  and  Baba  Bathra,  fol.  10. 
%  Eztkiel.  ix.  §  Tal.  Ydma,  fol.  67  and  Zohar,  sec.  Bereshith. 


MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE.  11 

Adam,  whom  all  creatnres  obeyed,  and  to  whom  the  angels  them- 
selves ministered.  He  took  the  form  of  a  serpent,  seduced  the 
woman,  and  was  the  cause  of  sin  and  death.  Then  the  curse  pro- 
nounced against  the  serpent,  took  effect  upon  man  also,  and  he  fell 
from  his  first  splendor.  According  to  Mahomet,  '  *  when  God  ordered 
the  angels  to  adore  Adam,  all  obeyed,  except  Eblis  (the  Devil) ;  he, 
filled  with  pride,  refused,  and  was  counted  among  the  ungrateful.'* 
But  this  is  not  all ;  before  the  creation  of  man,  as  well  as  afte"r  his 
fall,  Mahomet  comes  as  close  as  possible  to  the  Pharisees.  Their 
tradition  speaks  of  God  consulting  the  angels  before  the  creation  of 
man,  and  of  their  response  eminently  adverse  to  this  creation. 
Now,  is  not  this  what  we  read  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Koran  ? 
The  Pharisees  mention  the  penitence  of  Adam,  and  especially  the 
prayer  he  was  to  pronounce  in  honor  of  the  Sabbath.  Now  the 
Koran  says  expressly  that  God  taught  Adam  a  prayer,  and  that  Ha 
accepted  his  repentance. 

Besides  the  angels,  the  Koran  mentions  an  intermediate  order  of 
beings,  whom  the  Arabs  call  Djinn,  or  genii.  This  classification  is 
exactly  analogous  to  the  Scliedim,  whom  the  Pharisees  admit.  Their 
description  is  faithfully  echoed  by  that  of  Mahomet.  According  to 
the  Pharisees,  they  are  similar  to  men  in  three  respects  ;  as  to  foodt 
propagation  and  death  ;*  and  this  is,  word  for  word,  what  Mahome, 
teaches.  He  divides  them  into  the  good  and  the  bad,  thinks  they 
can  be  saved  and  damned,  like  men,  and  that  his  mission  includes 
their  conversion  also.  This  is,  in  other  terms,  what  the  Pharisees 
say  of  the  ScJiedim,  keepers  also  of  the  law  of  Moses,  who  were  sur- 
prised by  men  just  as  they  were  praying.  From  even  the  deepest 
strata  of  the  rabbinical  myths  has  Mahomet  plagiarized,  perhaps 
because  the  Pharisaism  that  surrounded  and  acted  upon  him  was  of 
that  legendary  character  that  entertains  the  people  especially  with 
wonderful  stories. 

After  these  remarks  upon  the  Koran,  and  the  mode  of  under- 
standing it,  we  need  say  but  little  upon  the  second  point  of  the 
Mussulman  faith,  belief  in  the  Scriptures.  Let  us  merely  add, 
that  besides  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  and  the  Gospel  which  they 
receive  just  as  do  Jews  and  Christians  (though  believing  these  books 
to  be  much  corrupted  by  both) ,  they  suppose  anterior  books  to  have 
existed,  of  which  exoteric  Judaism  makes  no  mention,  but  which  are 
forever  celebrated  in  the  mysterious  doctrines  of  the  Jews.  Where, 
if  not  from  this  source,  could  Mahomet  have  learned  that  there  were 
books  such  as  that  revealed  to  Adam  ( Sffra  deadam  harischon) ,  those 
of  Seth,  Enoch  and  Abraham,  books  which  the  Koran  speaks  of  as 
having  existed,  thpugh  thought  now  to  be  utterly  lost  ?  Now  the 
*  Talmud  duffl^a,  foL  14. 


12  MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTRINE. 

"whole  ancient  Babbinical  library  (except  the  Zohar)  makes  continual 
mention  of  those  books.  From  the  same  source  we  think  Mahomet 
took  the  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  certain  patriarchs  as  Adam, 
Seth,  Heber,  Enoch,  who,  by  no  means  get  this  quality  from  tho 
Mosaic  writings,  but  receive  it  in  some  degree  from  Talmudical 
Pharisaism,  and  then  still  more  from  the  Zohar  and  the  Cabala 
where  their  inspiration  is  regarded  as  complete. 

Before  speaking  of  the  last  article  of  Arab  faith,  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  we  shall  say  a  few  words  about  the  state  preceding 
that  event.  When  one  is  laid  in  the  tomb,  two  angels,  Monkir  and 
Nakir,  examine  him  upon  his  orthodoxy  and  conduct.  If  the  an- 
swers are  satisfactory,  the  body  is  allowed  to  rest  in  peace  and  be 
refreshed  by  the  air  of  Paradise  ;  but  if  the  answers  are  otherwise, 
the  deceased  is  struck  on  the  temples  with  iron  rods,  till  his  cries 
are  heard  from  east  to  west.  Then  they  press  the  earth  upon  the 
body,  which  is  gnawed  by  ninety  dragons.  What  Jew  has  not  heard 
of  the  Chibbout  hakeber,  the  flagellation  of  the  tomb.  When  the  angel 
of  death  sits  upon  the  sepulchre,  the  soul  enters  the  corpse  and  lifts 
it  to  its  feet ;  then  the  angel  examines  the  deceased  and  strikes  him 
with  a  chain,  half  of  iron,  half  of  fire,  so  that  at  the  first  blow  all 
the  limbs  are  disjointed  ;  at  the  second,  the  bones  are  destroyed  ; 
and  at  the  third  tho  body  is  reduced  to  dust  and  ashes.  Is  not  this 
the  picture  that  Islamism  has  copied  for  the  use  of  the  Arabs  ? 

The  state  of  the  soul  after  its  separation  from  the  body,  gives  us 
a  subject  requiring  still  more  study  and  thought.  It  is  impossible 
not  to  recognize  herein  the  ideas  of  the  Cabala  in  their  parabolic  or 
legendary  form,  c&e  which  brought  them  within  the  comprehension 
of  all  and  transformed  them  into  a  capricious  mythology,  fascinating 
for  the  imagination  of  the  people.  Let  us  see  what  they  teach. 
There  are,  on  this  subject,  divers  opinions  among  the  Arabs,  but, 
when  properly  viewed,  they  are  only  so  many  symbols  detached  from 
the  great  body  of  Cabalistic  symbolism,  all  bearing  the  truest  stamp, 
and  concealing  under  faces  the  most  divers,  one  identical  doctrine. 
According  to  some,  souls  keep  generally  near  sepulchres  ;  and  this 
is  what  the  Cabalists  tell  us  concerning  the  Nefcsch,  which  rarely 
leaves  its  body,  and  especially  about  the  Habala  degarme,  "  the 
breath  of  the  bones,"  which  never  leaves  it.  According  to  others, 
souls  are  with  Adam  in  the  lowest  heaven,  those  destined  for  Para- 
dise on  the  right,  and  those  for  hell  on  the  left.  Is  not  this  a  para- 
phrase of  the  Cabalistic  dogmas  ?  For  these  inform  us  that  all  human 
souls  are  contained  in  Adam,  some  in  his  head,  some  in  his  arms, 
others  in  his  breast,  and  so  on  ;  and  especially  that  the  last  heaven, 
the  Vdon,  Malkhout,  is  tho  seat  of  souls  ;  the  good  on  the  right,  the 
wicked  on  tho  left. 


: — ITS  DOCTRINE.  13 

A  third  opinion  of  the  Arabs  is  that  the  souls  of  the  just  are  pre- 
served in  the  water-founts  Zemzem,  those  of  the  wicked  in  the  pit 
Brohut.  Is  not  this  the  same  doctrine  under  another  form,  the  sym- 
bolism of  which  is  more  precise  and  marked  ?  This  Velon,  or  Malk- 
hout,  bears  the  significant  name  B",er  of  living  water,  expressed  in 
the  history  of  the  desert  by  "  the  wells  of  Miriam."  But  what  is 
less  known,  though  no  less  interesting,  is  that  while  the  seat  of 
the  blessed  is  called  Beer,  its  counterpart,  the  diabolic  kingdom, 
the  seat  of  the  wicked,  is  called  by  the  slightly  different  name  Bor, 
pit,  which  is  one  of  the  names  of  hell.  Can  we  have  a  closer,  a 
more  evident, analogy?  According  to  others,  souls  stay  seven  days 
near  the  tombs,  though  it  is  not  known  what  then  becomes  of  them. 
The  Zohar  tells  us  :  "  During  seven  days  the  soul  comes  and  goes 
from  the  torrb  to  its  house,  and  from  its  house  to  the  tomb  ;  after 
seven  days  the  body  remains  as  it  is,  and  the  soul  goes  where  it 
goes.  "*  This  is  not  all.  The  Arabs  have  another  opinion  very  strange 
and  curious,  but  which  is  repeated  with  singular  exactness  by  the 
Cabalistic  formula.  Understand,  if  you  can,  what  the  Arabs  mean  by 
saying  that ' '  souls  are  in  the  trumpet,  at  the  sound  of  which  the  dead 
shall  rise."  But  connect  these  words  with  the  Cabalistic  symbols, 
and  how  clear  becomes  the  sense  !  "We  have  but  to  remember  that 
the  spirit,  the  intellect  proper,  NESCHAMA,  has  its  seat  in  the  BINA, 
"the  superior  mother;"  that  this  Eon,  this  Sephira  bears  as  its 
most  legitimate  name,  SCHOPHABGADOII,  "the  grand  trumpet;"  and 
lastly,  that  at  the  sound  of  this  trumpet  the  dead  must  rise.  Were 
we  not  right  in  saying  that  these  doctrines  are  the  light-centre  that 
explains  the  two  greatest  religious  derivations — Christianity  and 
Islamism  ? 

It  is  time  we  should  allude  to  the  resurrection  itself.  Here 
Pharisaical  analogies  abound.  The  bone  called  el-alb  or  the 
coccyx,  which,  according  to  Mahomet,  will  remain  incorrupt  to 
the  last  day,  as  a  seed  or  leaven  to  renew  the  whole  body,  is  the 
same  as  the  bone  looz  of  the  Pharisees,  which  is  to  play  the  samo 
part  on  the  resurrection-day.  The  rain  of  forty  days,  which  Ma- 
homet says  will  make  bodies  germ  like  plants,  is  the  dew  which 
the  Pharisees  say  shall  fall  to  revive  the  dust  of  the  tombs,  as  the 
morning  dew  revives  the  flowers. 

We  shall  say  nothing  of  the  signs  that  are  to  herald  this  great 
day — signs  taken  now  from  the  Bible,  now  from  the  Doctors ;  of  the 
marks  that  the  faithful  and  the  wicked  shall  bear  on  their  faces,  imi- 
tated from  Ezekiel  ;  of  the  Hebrew  Messiah  transformed  by  Islam- 
ism  into  Antichrist ;  of  the  irruption  of  the  Yadjoudj  and  Madjoudj, 
the  Gog  and  Magog  of  the  Jews,  with  all  the  circumstances  attend  - 

•  Zob*r,  section  VJiychi 


H  MOHAMMEDISM— ITS  DOCTRINE. 

ing  their  advent  given  by  Ezekiel ;  of  the  triple  sound  of  the  trum- 
pet, modeled  from  all  the  official  sounds  of  Judaism,  always  triple; 
of  the  kind  of  dress  with  which  the  dead  shall  rise  from  their 
tombs,  and  which  the  Talmud*  had  already  assigned  them,  in  the 
gracious  parable  of  "the  grain  of  wheat  which  is  sown  naked,  and 
buds  clad  in  splendid  attire."  But  what  should  arrest  us  for  a  mo- 
ment is  the  part  the  sun  plays  in  this  great  day.  The  Pharisees  had 
said  :  There  is  no  Hell  in  the  world  to  come,  but  the  sun  shall  leave 
his  sheath,  burning  the  wicked  and  comforting  the  just.  One  of 
the  great  sufferings  of  the  wicked,  as  Islamism  in  its  turn  teaches, 
will  bo  a  great  sweat,  produced  not  only  by  the  great  concourse  of 
beings,  but  especially  by  the  nearness  of  the  sun,  which  shall  then  be 
distant  only  a  MiLE.f  The  just  will  be  secured  from  this. evil,  dwel- 
ling "  under  the  shade  of  the  throne  of  God."  It  is  impossible  not 
to  recognize  in  this  the  impress  of  Pharisaism.  But  a  still  more 
important  analogy,  is  the  justification  which  the  soul  and  the  body 
shall  plead  in  that  great  day,  each  trying  to  shift  the  responsibility 
of  its  evil  deeds  upon  the  other.  "  O,  Lord,"  the  soul  will  say, 
"  I  received  from  thee  my  body,  because  thou  didst  create  me  with- 
out hands  to  seize  anything,  without  feet  to  walk,  eyes  to  see  or  ears 
to  hear,  until  I  entered  into  the  body;  that,  therefore,  thou  shouldst 
punish  eternally."  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  body  :  "  Lord,  thou 
didst  create  me  like  a  stick  of  wood,  unable  to  use  my  eyes  to  see, 
or  my  feet  and  hands  to  act,  until  this  soul  came  to  animate  me; 
then  my  tongue  began  to  speak,  my  eves  to  see,  etc ;  pun- 
ish, therefore,  this  soul  eternally."  Is  not  this  the  question  that 
Marcus  Aurelius  proposed  to  Juda  the  Holy,  as  the  Talmud  relates?  t 
What  is  God's  reply,  according  to  Islamism?  The  same  exactly 
as  that  given  by  Juda  the  Holy.  Then  comes  the  apologue  of  the 
blind  man  and  the  paralytic,  who  having  got  into  the  fruit  garden 
of  the  King,  excused  themselves  by  alleging,  each,  his  impotence. 
In  their  narration,  as  in  ours,  God  puts  the  paralytic  upon  the  back 
of  the  blind  man,  judges  them  and  punishes  them  in  this  position. 
So  astonishing  a  conformity  of  ideas  and  images  between  Mahomet 
and  the  Talmud  could  scarcely  be  due  to  chance. 

We -shall  but  name  other  ideas  and  images  common  to  both  reli- 
gions.    The  books  that  will  be  produced  at  the  last  day,  the  scales 

*  Sanhedrim,  fol.  90.    %  $  Ibid,  fol.  91. 

t  Our  readers  may  smilo  at  this  as  an  absurdity.  Let  them  remember,  however,  that 
this  describes  an  "evil1 'and  abnormal  condition  of  things  ;  and  secondly,  that  they 
should  have  littlo  difficulty  in  accepting  this,  if  they  can  credit  the  modern  teaching  that 
our  sun  is  ninety-five  million  miles  distant  (and  stationary !),  and  that  our  cumbrous  earth 
is  traveling  at  a  speed  (nearly  twenty  miles  a  second !)  which,  if  true,  would  annihilate  all 
animal  lift,  at  least  on  its  surface. 


%MOHA3MEDIS3f — ITS  DOCTKINE..  15 

in  which  actions-will  be  weighed,  the  bridge  of  Hell  over  which 
men  are  to  pass,  belonged  to  Pharisaism  long  before  they  figured  in 
the  Koran.*  But  these  images  are  too  deeply  founded  in  man's 
spiritual  nature  to  derive  an  argument  from  them.  What  best  merits 
our  attention  is  rather  whatever  is  arbitrary  and  capricious  as  to 
places,  as  to  the  duration  and  nature  of  rewards  and  punishments  ; 
for  if  a  resemblance  between  the  religions  in  such  matters  be  shown, 
it  must  have  great  weight  for  an  impartial  critic.  Now  we  can  with 
confidence  affirm  that  in  these  respects  the  conformity  is  most  strik- 
ing. If  the  Koran  makes  seven  degrees  in  Hell,  the  Pharisees  give 
it  the  same  divisions  ;f  if  its  custody  is  entrusted  to  angels,  if  the 
damned  confess  the  justice  of  God's  judgment,  if  their  tortures 
consist  sometimes  in  an  excess  of  heat,  sometimes  in  an  excess  of 
cold,  if  those  tortures  are  to  have  an  end, — these  ideas  are  all  in 
the  most  celebrated  Pharisaical  writings,  with  the  exception  of  the 
last,  wherein  they  give  themselves  the  advantage  and  the  copyist  has 
deviated  from  his  model.  For  while  with  the  Pharisees  the  limita- 
tion of  punishment  is  a  general  law,  applicable  to  both  Jews  and 
Pagans,  with  the  Mussulmen  it  is  confined  to  believers,  and  eternal 
punishment  reserved  for  infidels  and  idolaters.  J 

Islamism  is  no  less  indebted  to  Pharisaism  for  its  description  of 
Paradise.  The  latter  locates  it  in  the  seventh  heaven,  called  Araboth, 
at  the  foot  of  God's  throne,  which  the  Cabalists  designate  by  the 
Sephira,  the  exact  Eon  of  Malkhout,  called  Throne  of  God,  Paradise, 
and  Gan  Eden, — the  seat,  as  we  have  said,  of  souls. \  Islamism 
teaches  that  Paradise  is  situated  in  the  seventh  heaven,  immedi- 
ately beneath  the  Throne  of  God ;  the  pearls  and  hyacinths  with 
which  it  is  paved^its  walls  of  gold  and  silver,  its  pomegranates, 
grapes,  and  dates,  of  exquisite  taste  and  perfume,  its  viands,  its  birds 
all  prepared,  the  silk  robes  which  the  earth  shall  produce,  are  all 
modeled  from  Biblical  and  Rabbinical  descriptions.  The  future 
Jerusalem,  the  Paradise  or  celestial  kingdom  of  the  Cabalists,  shall 
be,  according  to  the  prophets,  full  of  these  wonders ;  its  pavements, 
walls  and  windows  of  silver,  gold  and  precious  stones.  We  read  in 
the  Talmud  that  an  incredulous  disciple  saw  with  his  own  eyes 
angels  cutting  precious  stones  of  an  enormous  size ;  and  the  Rab- 
binical legends  tell  us  that  the  earth  shall  produce  in  the  days  of 
the  Messiah  cakes  and  silk  dresses  ready  made.  Nor  are  the  rivers 
forgotten  :  These,  Mahomet  says,  shall  be  of  water,  milk,  wine-and 
honey.  Exactly  what  the  Haggada,  the  popular  legends  of  tha 

*  Yalkont  Shimoni,  foL  153,  and  Sanhedrim. 

t  Ibid.  Shimoni,  Eroubin,  fol.  19,  and  Zohar,  Vol.  ii,  Ch.  xxv:  S. 

t  Ibid.  Shimoni,  foL  86  and  116;  Zohar,  11, 19;  Eroubin,  foL  19. 

|  Talmtid  Twiith,  fol.  25;  Chagiffi,  Ch.  ii.  -• 


16  /MOHAMMEDISM — ITS  DOCTBINK 

Pharisees,  teaches.*  One  kind  only,  that  plays  a  great  part  in  eso* 
teric  Judaism  and  especially  in  the  Zohar,  is  forgotten — viz,  the 
rivers  of  balm.  As  a  compensation,  Mahomet  promises  his  followers 
"girls  with  large  black  eyes  "  (Hour  el-oyn) ,  who  may  have  a  remote 
relationship  to  the  Alamoth  (virgins) ,  a  name  given  by  the  Cabal- 
ists  to  souls  detached  from  their  bodies. 

But  what  recalls  us,  beyond  dispute,  to  the  Pharisaical  sources  is 
the  idea  that  God  will  give  the  blessed  strength  to  enjoy  his  favors, 
so  that  they  shall  not  sink  under  them;  a  noble  and  pure  idea  as  it 
came  from  the  Doctors,  but  one  which  Mahomet  has  degraded  to  the 
grossest  instincts  of  the  Arab  race.  It  would  be,  however,  unjust 
to  deny  that  Mahomet  is  better  than  his  disciples;  for  if  the  enjoy- 
ments he  promises  them  are  such  as  a  good  man  would  not  covet 
here-below,  he  has  rewards  which  he  esteems  far  above  all  sensual 
pleasures, — such  as  to  view  the  face  of  God  every  evening  and  morn- 
ing,— one  for  which  (as  Al-Ghazali  remarks)  all  the  other  pleasures 
of  Paradise  will  be  forgotten. 

To  finish  with  the  dogmas  of  Mahomet,  we  have  but  a  word  to 
say  upon  predestination,  or  the  eternal  decrees  of  God  as  to  the 
fate  of  men  and  their  works.  Singular  destiny  of  moral  liberty  ! 
Without  an  asylum  or  assured  protection  in  the  midst  of  ancient 
Paganism,  we  might  yet  have  thought  that  the  products  of  that  reli- 
gion which  said:  "  I  put  life  and  good,  death  and  evil,  before  you, — 
choose  then  life,"f  would  have  a  little  better  respected  God's  gift, 
the  power  by  which  man  most  resembles  his  Creator.  Vain  hope  ! 
In  the  transmission  of  the  Jewish  dogmas  to  subsequent  religions,  the 
first  that  suffered  and  was  sunk  in  the  wreck  of  Judaism,  was  /re«- 
will,  liberty.  Is  it  then  fated  that  the  people  who  "  struggled  with 
God  and  with  men,"|  shall  be  the  born-guardian  of  all  liberties? 
Impossible  to  deny  it :  in  Christianity,  as  well  as  in  Islamism,  by 
violent  death  or  by  lingering  consumption,  liberty  has  perished. 
The  former  stifled  it  softly,  noiselessly,  by  dint  of  favors, — favors 
anticipatory,  efficacious,  irresistible,  favors  of  every  kind  and  shade, 
till  liberty  finally  sunk  under  the  weight  of  so  many  benefits.  It 
was  killed  in  the  name  of  the  goodness  of  God,  which,  nevertheless, 
never  shone  higher  than  when  God,  limiting  man's  power,  yet  said 
to  him :  Be  free !  Islamism,  on  the  other  hand,  has  killed  it  with  a 
single  blow,  as  its  Califs  and  Sultans  cut  off  heads  with  the  cimeter; 
it  has  killed  it  in  the  name  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  which,  never- 
theless, is  never  so  great, — of  Ms  power,  which  is  never  so  powerful 
as  when,  superior  to  itself,  it  limits  its  own  action. 

Need  we  say  that  Pharisaism  is  free  from  these  excesses  ?    We  say 
designedly,  Pharisaism,  Judaism;  for  none  other  has  kept  the  proper 

*  Yaik'c-ut  Ebimoni  »  Deui  x»:  15-49.  t  Gen.  xixi:  9. 


MOHAMMEDISM — WORSHIP  AND  ETHICS;  17 

'mean  in  this  grave  problem.  On  one  side,  the  Sadducees,  as  Joseph 
attests,  set  no  bounds  to  human  liberty, — a  system  as  absurd  as  it 
was  impious.  On  the  other,  the  Essenes  spoke  a  language  in  which 
contempt  was  almost  inevitable.  They  ascribed  (Joseph  still  our 
witness)  all  to  destiny. 

Far  from  us  the  thought  of  seeing  in  the  destiny  of  the  Essenes 
the  fatalism  of  the  Mussulman  or  the  necessity  of  Spinoza.  But  with- 
out being  the  cause,  it  has  assuredly  given  occasion  to  the  second, 
and  perhaps  also  to  the  first.  We  should,  however,  for  the  honor  of 
the  human  mind,  much  more  than  for  that  of  Islamism,  remark  that 
the  Arab  philosophy  has  struggled  in  every  way  against  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  the  fatalism  consecrated  by  Mahomet,  and  that  it  has 
been  sometimes  bold  enough  to  maintain  the  opposite  opinion, — to 
assert  that  the  free  judgment  of  man  is  intact. 


fCHAPTEB  II. 

\VORSUII*  .AJNTD  ETHICS. 

The  examination  we  have  made  of  the  Mohammedan  faith  has  met 
our  expectations.  The  result  has  but  more  and  more  demonstrated 
that  Pharisaical  origin  which  we  strongly  suspected  from  the  first. 
A  new  stud}'  now  presents  itself,  viz  :  The  religious  practice  and 
worship  of  Islam.  This,  as  we  have  said,  includes  four  divisions  : 
prayer,  fasting,  alms  and  pilgrimage  to  Mecca.  Let  us  commence  with 
prayer,  but  as  this  must  be  preceded  by  purifications,  let  us  first  say 
a  word  as  to  these.  They  are  of  two  kinds  :  1st,  total  purification, 
called,  ghosl,  that  is,  ablution  of  the  whole  body,  corresponding  to 
the  Hebrew  tebila ;  2d,  purification  of  the  face,  hands  and  feet,  done 
after  a  set  fashion,  the  wodon. 

Here  is  a  distinction  corresponding  exactly  to  the  most  ordinary 
practices  of  the  Pharisees.  Let  .us  see  if  the  mode  of  performance 
in  Islamism  be  less  simple.  After  sexual  intercourse  the  whole  body 
is  to  be  purified  by  immersion;  likewise,  those  who  have  been  near  the 
dead,  and  women  who  have  been  confined  or  have  had  their  courses. 
These  four  cases  are  anticipated  by  Moses;  but  what  best  proves  the 
Pharisaical  derivation  is  the  first  ablution,  which,  though  clearly 
enjoined  by  the  Mosaic  text,  acquired  its  general  signification  and  im- 
portance only  from  Ezra  and  the  Kabbinical  institutions.  In  short, 
the  face,  hands  and  feet  are  purified  before  prayer.  It  is  true  that 


18  MOHAMMEDISM — WORSHIP  AND  ETHICS. 

this  particular  intention  and  special  object  did  not  enter  into-tHe 
binical  prescriptions ;  but  the  daily  occurrence  of  the  practice,  and 
the  general  ideas  of  not  approaching  holy  things  without  this  puri- 
fication leave  no  room  to  doubt  that  the  same  spirit  presided  in  both 
cases  regarding  the  object  of  these  ablutions. 

Still  more, — the  Pharisees,  when  water  cannot  be  had,  fulfil  this 
obligation  by  using  fine  sand  or  dust,  and  to  the  same  expedient,  in 
a  similar  lack,  has  the  Koran  recource. 

Although  the  Koran  does  not  order-circumcision,  the  custom  is 
too  well  known  and  too  old  among  the  Arabs  to  need  mention.  But 
what  we  should  notice  is  that  the  Arabs  say  circumcision  is  as  old  as 
Adam,  to  whom  it  was  taught  by  the  angel  Gabriel.  Now,  is  not  this, 
in  another  guise,  the  assertion  of  the  Kabbis,  that  not  alone  was  Adam 
created  perfect ;  but  many  other  Patriarchs  after  him  were  born  cir- 
cumcised. 

Is  this  the  only  bodily  preparation  which  the  Arabs'think  indis- 
pensable to  worship  and  prayer  ?  The  attitude  of  the  body  during 
prayer  is  no  less  necessary  to  render  it  acceptable.  To  turn  towards 
the  holy  place  is  an  indispensable  duty,  and  all  can  see  how  the 
thought  of  Mahomet,  and  the  ancient  usage  of  Israel  (practised  by 
Daniel  himself  at  Babylon)  curiously  coincide.  How  then,  if  we 
knew,  for  instance,  that,  according  to  the  oldest  injunction  of  Ma- 
homet, it  was  towards  Jerusalem  one  should  face  during  prayer? 
But  this  fact  is  well  established.  Ever,  even  since  Mecca  has  taken 
the  place  of  Jerusalem,  do  Mussulmen  and  Jews  at  the  hour  of 
prayer,  turn  their  eyes  and  bodies  to  their  sacred  cities. 

Alms,  the  second  precept  of  Islamism,  is  of  two  kinds,  viz :  legal 
and  voluntary.  The  first  is  determined  by  law,  regard  being  had  to 
both  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  gifts  ;  the  other  is  left  to  the 
disposition  of  each,  which  is  more  similar  to  the  Judaic  institu- 
tions ?  In  the  latter  also,  we  have  tenths  of  all  kinds,  the  corners 
of  the^fields,  the  small  grapes  or  the  forgotten  corn-ears  that  belong 
in  full  right  to  the  poor,  to  strangers,  widows  and  orphans ;  and 
there  is  also  the  alms  proper  which  each  gives  according  to  his 
means  or  generosity.  The  analogy  appears  already  in  this  general 
distinction,  and  it  is  no  less  visible  as  to  the  time  most  suitable  for 
the  exercise  of  this  duty.  The  Koran,  as  do  the  Babbis,  recom- 
mends the  giving  of  alms-at  prayer-time,  that  it  may  intercede  with 
God  for  us.  We  seem  to  hear  and  see  Babbi  Eliezer,  who  always 
gave  alms  before  prayer,  recalling  the  verse  from  the  Psalms :  "I 
shall  see  thy  face  through  charity."*  Mussulman  humanity  extends 
to  animals.  Has  it  surpassed  the  sensibility  and  goodness  of  the 

*  Chap,  xvii,  16— Talmud  BabaBathm,  foL  10. 


MOHAMMEDISM — WORSHIP  AND 

Pharisees?  Long  before  societies  for  the  pi 
were  thought  of,  those  Pharisees,  so  little  known, 
give  an  animal  pain  is  a  sin  against  the  law  of  God  ;  and  had  Male- 
branche  been  a  Jew  he  would  not  have  given  his  dog  that  famous 
kick,  saying :  ' '  She  has  no  feeling. "  ' '  The  sophistry  "  of  these  Phar- 
isees could  discover  in  the  most  revered  passages  of  the  Pentateuch, 
the  obligation  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  animals  before  sitting  to 
table,  and  one  of  these  heartless,  stupid  Pharisees  could  eat  nothing 
before  ordering  his  oxen  to  be  fed.* 

The  law  of  Mahomet  prescribes  nothing  as  to  the  quantity  of 
alms.  A  new  homage,  as  all  can  see,  to  the  Pharisaic  origin.  Ordi- 
nary alms  is  generally  confined  to  the  fortieth  part.  This  was  the 
maximum  which  the  Rabbis  appointed  for  the  Terouma,  or  tax  for 
the  sacrifiers.  On  extraordinary  occasions,  after  gaining  a  battle  or 
lucky  speculation,  very  liberal  alms  should  be  given.  What  limit 
did  Islamism  prescribe  ?  The  very  same  as  did  the  Doctors  assem- 
bled at  Ouscha  to  check  the  inconsiderate  impulse  of  Hebrew  char- 
ity—viz, a  fifth.f 

As  to  the  third  article  of  the  faith,  viz,  fasting,  Mahomet  has 
exaggerated  its  value  far  beyond  that  given  it  by  the  Rabbis  ;  per- 
haps because  it  appeared  to  him  more  meritorious  in  a  people  still 
subjected  to  the  appetites  of  the  flesh.  Mahomet,  however,  seems 
to  have  taken  one  idea  from  the  Rabbis  when  he  says :  "  The  breath 
of  the  faster  is  more  pleasant  to  God  than  the  odor  of  musk."  Sub- 
stituting the  odor  of  sacrifices  for  that  of  musk,  we  have  an  imitation 
of  the  Talmud,!  and  especially  of  the  Cahalists.  How  do  Mussul- 
men  keep  the  ordained  fast,  and  what  are  the  self-imposed  priva- 
tions? The  Bible  speaks  but  of  the  "affliction  of  the  spirit,"  or 
rather  of  the  mortification  of  the  senses.  But  the  Pharisaical  defi- 
nition gives  us  exactly  the  manner  in  which  the  Arabs  keep  the  fast. 
To  eat,  drink,  wash,  annoint  the  body,  br  have  sexual  intercourse, 
are  all  forbidden  by  Jewish  tradition  during  the  great  fast.  And 
these  acts  the  Koran  likewise  prohibits,  from  day-^break  to  sun-set. 
If  not  abstained  from,  the  fast  is  considered  void.  Day-break  is  the 
commencement  of  the  Mussulman  fast ;  but  the  Koran  brings  us 
still  more  closely  than  by  this  point  to  prove  Pharisaism  when  it 
says  that  the  fast  commences  as  soon  as  a  white  thread  can  be  dis- 
tinguished from  a  black  one  in  the  light  of  dawn.  This  is  what  the 
Mischna  lays  down  as  to  the  reading  of  the  Schema  in  the  morning, 
viz,  as  soon  as  blue  can  be  discerned  from  white.  Mahomet  designates 
the  tenth  of  the  month  Moharram  as  the  most  appropriate  day  for 
fast.  Does  he  but  sanction  a  custom  already  in  force  among  the 
Arabs,  as  Al-Ghazali  thinks  ?  We  think  it  much  more  likely  that 

Talmud  Berachoth,  fol.  40.  f  Ib.  Kethubotb,  fol.  50.          *  Ib.  Berachoth,  fol.  17. 


20  MOHAMMEDISM — WORSHIP  AND  ETHICS 

lie  has  imitated  the  great  Jewish  fast  on  the  10th  of  the  7th  month, 
especially  as  he  too  calls  his  fast  aschour  after  the  Mosaic  assor, 
held  on  the  day  of  Atonement. 

As  to  the  pilgrimage  to  Mecca,  although  Mahomet  preserved  a 
custom  already  in  vogue  among  the  Arabs,  he  has  but  followed  the 
example  of  Moses,  who  enjoins  on  all  Isrealites  to  visit  the  temple 
of  God  three  times  a  year.  If  Mahomet  has  not  been  so  exacting, 
and  commands  the  performance  of  this  duty  once  only  in  life,  it  is 
because  his  religion,  like  Christianity,  was  destined  to  spread  itself 
wherever  the  sword  or  proselytizing  opened  a  way,  because  it  is 
much  more  a  cosmical  than  a  national  worship,  and  because  three 
annual  visits  to  the  temple  at  Mecca  would  have  been  almost  impos- 
sible for  the  inhabitants  of  most  countries.  In  giving  precepts  to 
the  Arabs,  Mahomet  did  not  confine  himself  to  purely  positive 
ones,  such  as  those  we  have  mentioned.  He  forbid  many  things,  of 
which  we  shall  mention  but  two,  where  the  imitation  from  the  Jews 
is  incontestable,  viz  :  the  use  of  certain  meats,  and  usury.  If  the 
flesh  of  swine  was  rejected  by  the  Arabs  before  Mahomet's  day,  as  is 
pretended,  no  doubt  that  Mahomet  himself  forbid  many  other  meats. 
Not  only  is  pork  forbidden  by  the  Koran,  but  also  blood,  as  well 
as  all  animals  that  die  naturally,  or  that  have  been  strangled,  or 
slain  by  other  animals;  although  all  such  are  allowed  under  the 
pressure  of  imperious  necessity,  from  want  of  food,  or  in  extreme 
danger.  Are  not  these  purely  Hebrew  importations,  both  the  pre- 
cepts and  restrictions  ? 

Let  us  now  take  a  rapid  glance  at  the  civil  institutions  of  Mo- 
hammedism.  Here  it  is  that  the  Pharisaical  influence  shows  itself 
in  all  its  strength.  Let  us  begin  with  marriage.  The  Koran  allows 
polygamy.  Is  it  as  arbitrary  and  unconditional  as  some  authors 
think  ?  Far  from  it ;  the  Koran  is  precise  thereupon :  no  one  can 
have  more  than  four  wives, — the  exact  number  appointed  by  the 
Kabbis.  The  same  causes  that  authorize,  in  Judaism,*  a  woman  to 
demand  a  divorce,  are  equally  admissible  in  the  Mahomedan  law, 
viz :  bad  treatment,  neglect  to  maintain,  impotence,  or  any  other  lack 
of  conjugal  duty.  In  both  religions,  a  widow  or  repudiated  wife, 
must  wait  three  months  before  re-marrying;  if  she  suckles  a  child, 
she  must  wait  two  years  reckoning  from  its  birth. f 

Adultery  in  both  religions  is  punished  by  stoning.  To  prove 
the  crime  four  witnesses  are  required  by  Mahomet,  two  by  Moses ; 
and  what  deserves  attention  is  the  imprecation  which  the  former 
imposes  on  a  woman  accused  three  times  by  her  husband  of  adul- 
tery, obliging  her,  if  she  wishes  to  be  acquitted  to  invoke  the  ven- 

*  Talmud  Kethuboth,  Ch.  v — Shoulchan  Arouch,  Vol.  iii,  Ch.  xiiL 
t  Maimondos  Hitchouth  Ishouth,  xix. 


MOHAIOCEDISM — WORSHIP  AND  E THICS.  21 

geance  of  God  on  her  head,  if  she  is  guilty.  Is  not  this  the  impre- 
cation accompanying  the  test  of  the  bitter  waters  found  in  the  book 
of  Numbers? 

The  law  of  Moses  does  not  allow  human  life  to  be  estimated  at  a 
price.  Murder  must  be  punished,  but  not  by  a  fine.  Mahomet  has 
greater  flexibility.  A  compensation  paid  the  family,  the  redemption 
of  a  captive  Mussulman,  will  acquit  the  homicide,  provided  always 
the  nearest  relative  of  the  slain  is  satisfied  ;  otherwise,  the  criminal  is 
given  up  to  him  to  suffer  any  death  such  relative  choses  to  inflict : 
a  new  lapse  from  the  law  of  Moses,  in  which  Mahomet  falls  into  an 
excess  of  severity,  as  he  just  before  erred  by  an  excessive  indulgence. 
Never  did  the  law  of  Moses  place  the  life  of  a  man  at  the  disposi- 
tion of  another ;  and  if  certain  expressions  seem  to  justify  doubts 
on  this  point,  it  is  because  the  nearest  relative  played,  in  Jewish 
society,  the  part  of  public  accuser,  and  because  putting  the  killer 
into  the  hands  of  god  haddam,  means  simply,  surrendering  him  to 
his  fate,  public  justice  never  foregoing  its  judgment  or  the  execu- 
tion of  the  criminal.  Some  would  have  it  that  the  banishment  of 
an  unintentional  homicide,  ordered  by  Moses,  was  to  save  him  from 
the  anger  of  the  nearest  relative  of  the  slain,  and  some  have  talked 
of  the  spirit  of  vengeance  common  to  both  Arabs  and  Jews,  which 
originated  the  severe  punishment  in  vogue  with  both.  The  Mosaic 
text  in  no  wise  justifies  this  interpretation,  for  the  law  as  to  involun- 
tary homicide  has  all  the  marks  of  a  public  penalty,  far  more  than 
those  of  a  provision  to  defeat  the  revenge  of  relatives;  and  especially 
because  an  involuntary  sin,  such  as  the  eating  of  blood  or  tallow, 
equally  requires  an  expiation,  and  that  by  a  sacrifice.  But  all  sup- 
positions of  this  kind  crumble  before  Pharisaical  tradition,  which, 
far  from  extending  this  law,  as  the  text  might  imply,  to  all  involun- 
tary killing,  limits  its  action  strictly  to  a  homicide  who  kills  through 
culpable  negligence,  and  declares  all  others  free  to  come  and  go 
without  having  to  fear  reprisals  of  any  sort  from  the  relatives. 

The  law  of  retaliation  is  sanctioned  by  the  Koran  as  well  as  by 
the  law  of  Moses ;  but  what  completely  justifies  the  Pharisaical 
interpretation  of  this  law  is  the  Mussulman  practice  and  interpreta- 
tion of  it.  The  Pharisees,  as  we  know,  assert  that  Moses'  "  eye  for 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth,"  etc.,  means  only  that  their  value  shall  be  paid 
byline.  See  how  these  "  slaves  of  the  letter  "  can  foil  an  unjust  and 
barbarous  usage, — and  see  the  services  that  Pharisaism  has  rendered 
humanity !  Is  it  by  a  felicitous  faithlessness  to  the  Mosaic  thought 
that  they  evaded  the  consequences  of  the  literal  interpretation,  or  have 
they  taken  liberties  with  the  true  spirit  that  dictated  this  law? 
One  might  think  so,  taking  only  the  words  of  Exodus.  But  besides 
the  significant  phrase  in  Leviticus  (Chap,  xxiv:  18) ,  one  the  most 


22  MOHAMMEDISM — WORSHIP  AND  ETHICS. 

favorable  for  the  Pharisaical  exposition,  the  example  of  Islam  is  very 
noteworthy.  Retaliation  is  there  sanctioned  in  the  same  terms  and 
•with  the  same  force  as  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  yet,  strange  to  say ! 
this  law  gets  specifically  the  same  interpretation  as  does  the  Mosaic 
one  at  the  hands  of  the  Pharisees.  No  doubt  whatever;  and  seldom 
or  never  is  the  practical  application  diverse. 

War  upon  infidels  is  one  of  the  most  sacred  duties  recommended 
by  Islamism.  The  greatness  of  the  reward  promised  to  him  devot- 
ing his  time,  fortune  and  life  to  this  work,  is  equaled  only  by  the 
punishment  in  store  for  those  who  refuse  it  their  properties 
or  persons,  and  for  runaways  and  deserters.  With  Islam  the 
sword  is  the  key  of  heaven  and  hell,  and  those  wars  being  religious 
could  have «  no  limits  but  those  of  the  world  swayed  by  the 
Koran.  What  were  the  holy  wars  for  Christianity  but  religious 
wars  ?  Is  there  anything  similar  in  Judaism  ?  Remarkable  fact ! 
Judaism,  nation,  state,  government  though  it  was,  took  good  care  not 
to  enlist  the  state,  the  nation,  in  the  service  of  its  dogmas;  through 
fear  of  raising  a  religious  war,  it  condemned  itself  to  wage  no  war, 
that  is, — to  be  forever  politically  inferior;  it  forbid  itself  all  aggran- 
dizement, all  conquests  except  what  God  had  previously  determined, 
and  those  in  very  modest  measure.  What  a  difference  between  the 
two  doctrines  !  The  sword,  for  Islamism,  is  the  key  to  heaven  and 
hell.  But  for  the  Pharisees,  it  is  not  merely  no  ornament,  but  an 
impure  object  that  defiles  the  touch  like  a  dead  body.*  Is  this  the 
spectacle  with  which  the  two  religious  offshoots  of  Judaism  present 
us?  In  these  no  state,  no  nationality,  no  country — in  short,  no 
excuse — that  might  make  a  war  more  necessary,  more  lawful.  They 
could  have  claimed,  at  less  expense  than  could  Judaism,  merit 
for  moderation,  for  love  of  peace.  But  nothing  of  the  kind.  In 
both  cases,  the  infidel  was  the  true  enemy,  what  the  word  barbarian 
signified  for  paganism,  what  the  political  enemy  was  for  Judaism, 
the  infidel  was  for  the  Christian  Church  and  for  Islam,  that  is,  their 
natural  and  proper  enemy,  the  only  enemy  with  whom  they  might 
have  truce,  but  never  a  definite  peace  as  long  as  he  continued  in  his 
errors.  No  need  for  these  sects  to  repeat  the  priests  harangue 
to  the  people  before  battle, f  or  the  words  of  Maimonides  inspiring 
every  Hebrew  citizen J  with  courage  for  battle.  There  will  ever  be 
between  a  Hebrew  war  and  a  Christian  or  Mohammedan  one,  the 
difference  we  have  named, — one  as  great  as  between  the  religions 
themselves — that  abyss  in  short  which  men  have  made  between  them. 
The  first  one  will  never  be  more  than  a  defensive  war,  or  at  most  a 
political  one  ;  the  other  two  are  but  and  can  be  only  wars  of  religion. 

9  Talmud  S&abttrtb,  foL  93.      t  Iteut  w;  2.       I  Malmon.-  Hifcbtrath  Melachim,  Ch.  vii • 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


o 

lL 


Uf 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY  CA  94720 

®$ 


YC   15869 


